great as those of yellow fever in America. It is endemic or
permanent in the Ganges delta, whence it generally spreads
every year over India. It was not known in Europe until the
beginning of the century; but since that time we have had six
successive visitations. … In 1817 there was a violent outbreak
of cholera at Jessore, India. Thence it spread to the Malay
Islands, and to Bourbon (1819); to China and Persia (1821); to
Russia in Europe, and especially to St. Petersburg and Moscow
(1830). In the following year it overran Poland, Germany, and
England [thence in 1832 to Ireland and America], and first
appeared in Paris on January 6, 1832. … In 1849, the cholera
pursued the same route. Coming overland from India through
Russia, it appeared in Paris on March 17, and lasted until
October. In 1853, cholera, again coming by this route, was
less fatal in Paris, although it lasted for a longer time—from
November, 1853, to December, 1854. The three last epidemics,
1865, 1873, and 1884, … came by the Mediterranean Sea."
_E. L. Trouessart,
Microbes, Ferments and Moulds,
chapter 5, section 8._
A seventh visitation of cholera in Europe occurred in 1892.
Its route on this occasion was from the Punjab, through
Afghanistan and Persia into Russia and across the
Mediterranean to Southern France. Late in the summer the
epidemic appeared in various parts of Austria and Germany and
was frightfully virulent in the city of Hamburg. In England it
was confined by excellent regulations to narrow limits.
Crossing the Atlantic late in August, it was arrested at the
harbor of New York, by half-barbarous but effectual measures
of quarantine, and gained no footing in America.
_Appleton's Annual Cyclopœdia, 1892._
ALSO IN:
_C. Macnamara,
History of Asiatic Cholera._
_A. Stillé,
Cholera,
pages 15-31._
----------PLAGUE: End--------
PLAID.
PLACITUM.
See PARLIAMENT OF PARIS.
PLAIN OR MARAIS, The Party of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1792 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).
PLAINS OF ABRAHAM.
See ABRAHAM, PLAINS OF.
PLAN OF CAMPAIGN, The.
See IRELAND: A. D. 1886.
PLANTAGENETS, The.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189;
and ANJOU; CREATION OF THE COUNTY.
PLASSEY, Battle of.
See INDIA: A. D. 1757.
----------PLATÆA: Start--------
PLATÆA.
Platæa, one of the cities of the Bœotian federation in ancient
Greece, under the headship of Thebes, was ill–used by the
latter and claimed and received the protection of Athens. This
provoked the deep-seated and enduring enmity of Thebes and
Bœotia in general towards Athens, while the alliance of the
Athenians and Platæans was lasting and faithful.
_G. Grote,
History of Greece,
part 2, chapter 31._
PLATÆA: B. C. 490.
Help to Athens at Marathon.
See GREECE: B. C. 490.
PLATÆA: B. C. 479.
Decisive overthrow of the Persians.
See GREECE: B. C. 479.
PLATÆA: B. C. 431.
Surprise of.
The first act in the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 431) was the
surprising of the city of Platæa, the one ally of Athens in
Bœotia, by a small force from her near neighbor and deadly
enemy, Thebes. The Thebans were admitted by treachery at night
and thought themselves in possession of the town. But the
Platæans rallied before daybreak and turned the tables upon
the foe. Not one of the Thebans escaped.
See GREECE: B. C. 432-431.
PLATÆA: B. C. 429-427.
Siege, capture, and destruction by the Peloponnesians.
See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.
PLATÆA: B. C. 335.
Restoration by Alexander.
See GREECE: B. C. 336-335.
----------PLATÆA: End--------
PLATE RIVER, Discovery of the.
See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.
PLATE RIVER, Provinces of the.
See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
PLATO, and the Schools of Athens.
See ACADEMY;
also EDUCATION, ANCIENT: GREEK.
PLATTSBURG, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (SEPTEMBER).
PLAUTIO-PAPIRIAN LAW, The.
See ROME: B. C. 90-88.
PLEASANT HILL, Battle of.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).
----------PLEBEIANS: Start--------
{2544}
PLEBEIANS, OR PLEBS, Roman.
"We are now prepared to understand the origin of a distinct
body of people which grew up alongside of the patricians of
the Roman state during the latter part of the regal period and
after its close. These were the plebeians (plebs, 'the crowd,'
cf. 'pleo,' to fill) who dwelt in the Roman territory both
within and without the walls of the city. They did not belong
to the old clans which formed the three original tribes, nor
did they have any real or pretended kinship with them, nor,
for that matter, with one another, except within the ordinary
limits of nature. They were, at the outset, simply an
ill–assorted mass of residents, entirely outside of the
orderly arrangement which we have described. There were three
sources of this multitude:
I. When the city grew strong enough, it began to extend its
boundaries, and first at the expense of the cantons nearest
it, between the Tiber and the Anio. When Rome conquered a
canton, she destroyed the walls of its citadel. Its
inhabitants were sometimes permitted to occupy their villages
as before, and sometimes were removed to Rome. In either
case, Rome was henceforth to be their place of meeting and
refuge, and they themselves, instead of being reduced to the
condition of slaves, were attached to the state as
non-citizens.
II. The relation of guest-friendship so called, in ancient
times, could be entered into between individuals with their
families and descendants, and also between individuals and a
state, or between two states. Provision for such
guest–friendship was undoubtedly made in the treaties which
bound together Rome on the one side and the various
independent cities of its neighborhood on the other. … The
commercial advantages of Rome's situation attracted to it, in
the course of time, a great many men from the Latin cities in
the vicinity, who remained permanently settled there without
acquiring Roman citizenship.
III. A third constituent element of the 'plebs' was formed by
the clients ('the listeners,' 'cluere') [see CLIENTES]. … In
the beginning of the long struggle between the patricians and
plebeians, the clients are represented as having sided with
the former. … Afterward, when the lapse of time had weakened
their sense of dependence on their patrons, they became, as a
body, identified with the plebeians."
_A. Tighe,
Development of the Roman Constitution,
chapter 3._
Originally having no political rights, the Roman plebeians
were forced to content themselves with the privilege they
enjoyed of engaging in trade at Rome and acquiring property of
their own. But as in time they grew to outnumber the
patricians, while they rivalled the latter in wealth, they
struggled with success for a share in the government and for
other rights of citizenship. In the end, political power
passed over to them entirely, and the Roman constitution
became almost purely democratic, before it perished in anarchy
and revolution, giving way to imperialism.
_H. G. Liddell,
History of Rome,
chapters 7, 8, 10, 35._
ALSO IN:
_B. G. Niebuhr,
Lectures on History of Rome,
book 4, chapter 2._
PLEBEIANS:
Secessions of the Plebs.
See SECESSIONS OF THE ROMAN PLEBS.
----------PLEBEIANS: End--------
PLEBISCITA.
Resolutions passed by the Roman plebeians in their Comitia
Tributa, or Assembly of the Tribes, were called "plebiscita."
See ROME: B. C. 472-471.
In modern France the term "plebiscite" has been applied to a
general vote of the people, taken upon some single question,
like that of the establishment of the Second Empire.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1851-1852;
also, REFERENDUM.
PLESWITZ, Armistice of.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1813 (MAY-AUGUST).
PLEVNA, Siege and capture of.
See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.
PLOW PATENT, The.
See MAINE: A. D. 1629-1631; and 1643-1677.
PLOWDEN'S COUNTY PALATINE.
See NEW ALBION.
PLUVIÔSE, The month.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (OCTOBER)
THE NEW REPUBLICAN CALENDAR.
PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1605.
Visited by Champlain, and the harbor named Port St. Louis.
See CANADA: A. D. 1603-1605.
PLYMOUTH, Massachusetts: A. D. 1620.
Landing of the Pilgrims.
Founding of the Colony.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620, and after.
PLYMOUTH, North Carolina: A. D. 1864.
Capture and recapture.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1864 (APRIL-MAY: NORTH CAROLINA),
and (OCTOBER: NORTH CAROLINA).
----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: Start--------
PLYMOUTH COMPANY:
Formation.
See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607;
and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.
PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1615.
Unsuccessful undertakings with Captain John Smith.
See AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
PLYMOUTH COMPANY: A. D. 1620.
Merged in the Council for New England.
See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.
----------PLYMOUTH COMPANY: End--------
PLYMOUTH ROCK.
See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1620.
PNYX, The.
"The place of meeting [of the general assemblies of the people
in ancient Athens] in earlier times is stated to have been in
the market; in the historical period the people met there only
to vote on proposals of ostracism, at other times assembling
in the so-called Pnyx. As regards the position of this latter,
a point which quite recently has become a matter of
considerable dispute, the indications given by the ancient
authorities appear to settle this much at any rate with
certainty, that it was in the neighbourhood of the market, and
that of the streets running out of the market one led only
into the Pnyx."
_G. F. Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece: The State,
part 3, chapter 3._
"The Pnyx was an artificial platform on the north-eastern side
of one of the rocky heights which encircled Athens on the
west, and along the crest of which is still traced the ancient
enclosure of the Asty. In shape this platform differed only
from a circular sector of about 155 degrees, inasmuch as the
radii forming the angle were about 200 feet in length, while
the distance from the angle to the middle of the curve was
about 240 feet. On this latter side, or towards the Agora, the
platform was bounded by a wall of support, which is about
sixteen feet high in the middle or highest part, and is
composed of large blocks, of various sizes, and for the most
part quadrangular. In the opposite direction the platform was
bounded by a vertical excavation in the rock, which, in the
parts best preserved, is from twelve to fifteen feet high.
{2545}
The foot of this wall inclines towards the angle of the
sector, thereby showing that originally the entire platform
sloped towards this point as a centre, such being obviously
the construction most adapted to an assembly which stood or
sat to hear an orator placed in the angle. At this angle rose
the celebrated [bema], or pulpit, often called the rock. … It
was a quadrangular projection of the rock, eleven feet broad,
rising from a graduated basis. The summit is broken; its
present height is about twenty feet. On the right and left of
the orator there was an access to the summit of the bema by a
flight of steps, and from behind by two or three steps from an
inclosure, in which are several chambers cut in the rock,
which served doubtless for purposes connected with that of the
Pnyx itself. … The area of the platform was capable of
containing between seven and eight thousand persons, allowing
a square yard to each."
_W. M. Leake,
Topography of Athens,
appendix 11._
ALSO IN:
_G. F. Schömann,
The Assemblies of the Athenians,
pages 48-51._
See, also, AGORA.
POCKET BOROUGHS.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1830.
PODESTAS.
"About the end of the 12th century a new and singular species
of magistracy was introduced into the Lombard cities. During
the tyranny of Frederic I. [Frederick Barbarossa] he had
appointed officers of his own, called podestas, instead of the
elective consuls. It is remarkable that this memorial of
despotic power should not have excited insuperable alarm and
disgust in the free republics. But, on the contrary, they
almost universally, after the peace of Constance, revived an
office which had been abrogated when they first rose in
rebellion against Frederic. From experience, as we must
presume, of the partiality which their domestic factions
carried into the administration of justice, it became a
general practice to elect, by the name of podesta, a citizen
of some neighbouring state as their general, their criminal
judge, and preserver of the peace. … The podesta was sometimes
chosen in a general assembly, sometimes by a select number of
citizens. His office was annual, though prolonged in peculiar
emergencies. He was invariably a man of noble family, even in
those cities which excluded their own nobility from any share
in the government. He received a fixed salary, and was
compelled to remain in the city after the expiration of his
office for the purpose of answering such charges as might be
adduced against his conduct. He could neither marry a native
of the city, nor have any relation resident within the
district, nor even, so great was their jealousy, eat or drink
in the house of any citizen. The authority of these foreign
magistrates was not by any means alike in all cities. In some
he seems to have superseded the consuls, and commanded the
armies in war. In others, as Milan and Florence, his authority
was merely judicial."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 3, part 1 (volume 1)._
ALSO IN:
_E. Gibbon,
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
chapter 69._
PODIEBRAD, George, King of Bohemia, A. D. 1458-1471.
POINT PLEASANT, Battle of.
See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.
POISSY, The Colloquy at.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.
POITIERS:
Original names.
Limonum, a town of the Gauls, acquired later the name of
Pictavi, which has become in modern times Poitiers.
POITIERS:A. D. 1569.
Siege by the Huguenots.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.
POITIERS, Battle of.
A battle was fought September 19, 1356, near the city of
Poitiers, in France, by the English, under the "Black Prince,"
the famous son of Edward III., with the French commanded
personally by their king, John II. The advantage in numbers
was on the side of the French, but the position of the English
was in their favor, inasmuch as it gave little opportunity to
the cavalry of the French, which was their strongest arm. The
English archers won the day, as in so many other battles of
that age. The French were sorely beaten and their king was
taken prisoner.
_Froissart,
Chronicles,
(translated by Johnes),
book 1, chapters 157-166._
See FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360.
POITIERS, Edict of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1577-1578.
POITOU:
Origin of the name.
See PICTONES.
POITOU:
The rise of the Counts.
See TOULOUSE: 10-11th CENTURIES.
POITOU:
The Counts become Dukes of Aquitaine or Guienne.
See AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.
POKANOKETS,
WAMPANOAGS, The.
See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675, 1675, 1676-1678.
POLA, Naval battle of (1379).
See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.
----------POLAND: Start--------
POLAND.
The Name.
"The word Pole is not older than the tenth century, and seems
to have been originally applied, not so much to the people as
to the region they inhabited; 'polska' in the Slavonic tongue
signifying a level field or plain."
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Poland,
introduction._
POLAND:
The ancestors of the race.
See LYGIANS.
POLAND:
Beginnings of national existence.
"The Poles were a nation whose name does not occur in history
before the middle of the tenth century; and we owe to
Christianity the first intimations that we have regarding this
people. Mieczislaus [or Miceslaus] I., the first duke or
prince of the Poles of whom we possess any authentic accounts,
embraced Christianity (966) at the solicitation of his spouse,
Dambrowka, sister of Boleslaus II., duke of Bohemia. Shortly
after, the first bishopric in Poland, that of Posen, was
founded by Otho the Great. Christianity did not, however, tame
the ferocious habits of the Poles, who remained for a long
time without the least progress in mental cultivation. Their
government, as wretched as that of Bohemia, subjected the
great body of the nation to the most debasing servitude.
{2546}
The ancient sovereigns of Poland were hereditary. They ruled
most despotically, and with a rod of iron; and, although they
acknowledged themselves vassals and tributaries of the German
emperors, they repeatedly broke out into open rebellion,
asserted their absolute independence, and waged a successful
war against their masters. Boleslaus, son of Mieczislaus I.,
took advantage of the troubles which rose in Germany on the
death of Otho III., to possess himself of the Marches of
Lusatia and Budissin, or Bautzen, which the Emperor Henry II.
afterwards granted him as fiefs. This same prince, in despite
of the Germans, on the death of Henry II. (1025), assumed the
royal dignity. Mieczislaus II., son of Boleslaus, after having
cruelly ravaged the country situate between the Oder, the
Elbe, and the Saal, was compelled to abdicate the throne, and
also to restore those provinces which his father had wrested
from the Empire. The male descendants of Mieczislaus I.
reigned in Poland until the death of Casimir the Great (1370).
This dynasty of kings is known by the name of the Piasts, or
Piasses, so called from one Piast, alleged to have been its
founder."
_W. Koch,
History of Revolutions in Europe,
chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Poland,
chapters 1-2._
POLAND: A. D. 1096.
The refuge of the Jews.
See JEWS: 11-17th CENTURIES.
POLAND: A. D. 1240-1241.
Mongol invasion.
See MONGOLS: A. D. 1229-1294.
POLAND: 13-14th Centuries.
Growing power and increasing dominion.
Encroachments on Russia.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1237-1480.
POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.
The union with Lithuania and the reign of the Jagellon dynasty.
Conquest of Prussia and its grant to Grandmaster Albert.
Casimir III., or Casimir the Great, the last Polish king of
the Piast line, ascended the throne in 1333. "Polish
historians celebrate the good deeds of this king for the
internal prosperity of Poland—his introduction of a legal
code, his just administration, his encouragement of learning,
and his munificence in founding churches, schools, and
hospitals. The great external question of his reign was that
of the relations of Poland to the two contiguous powers of
Lithuania and the Teutonic Knights of Prussia and the Baltic
provinces. On the one hand, Poland, as a Christian country,
had stronger ties of connexion with the Teutonic Knights than
with Lithuania. On the other hand, ties of race and tradition
connected Poland with Lithuania; and the ambitious policy of
the Teutonic Knights, who aimed at the extension of their rule
at the expense of Poland and Lithuania, and also jealously
shut out both countries from the Baltic coast, and so from the
advantages of commerce, tended to increase the sympathy
between the Poles and the Lithuanians. A happy solution was at
length given to this question. Casimir, dying in 1370, left no
issue but a daughter, named Hedvige; and the Crown of Poland
passed to his nephew Louis of Anjou, at that time also King of
Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
Louis, occupied with the affairs of Hungary, neglected those
of Poland, and left it exposed to the attacks of the
Lithuanians. He became excessively unpopular among the Poles;
and, after his death in 1384, they proclaimed Hedvige Queen of
Poland. In 1386, a marriage was arranged between this princess
and Jagellon, Duke of Lithuania—Jagellon agreeing to be
baptized, and to establish Christianity among his hitherto
heathen subjects. Thus Poland and Lithuania were united; and a
new dynasty of Polish kings was founded, called the dynasty of
the Jagellons. The rule of this dynasty, under seven
successive kings (1386-1572) constitutes the flourishing epoch
of Polish history, to which at the present day the Poles look
fondly back when they would exalt the glory and greatness of
their country. … The effect of the union of Poland and
Lithuania was at once felt in Europe. The first Jagellon, who
on his baptism took the name of Uladislav II., and whom one
fancies as still a sort of rough half-heathen by the side of
the beautiful Polish Hedvige, spent his whole reign
(1386-1434) in consolidating the union and turning it to
account. He defended Lithuania against the Tartar hordes then
moving westward before the impulse of the conquering
Tamerlane. But his chief activity was against the Teutonic
Knights. … He engaged in a series of wars against the knights,
which ended in a great victory gained over them at Tannenburg
in 1410. By this victory the power of the knights was broken
for the time, and their territories placed at the mercy of the
Poles. During the reign of Uladislav III., the second of the
Jagellons (1434-1444), the knights remained submissive, and
that monarch was able to turn his arms, in conjunction with
the Hungarians, against a more formidable enemy—the Turks—then
beginning their invasions of Europe. Uladislav III. having
been slain in battle against the Turks at Varna, the Teutonic
Knights availed themselves of the confusion which followed, to
try to recover their power. By this time, however, their
Prussian subjects were tired of their rule; Dantzic, Elbing,
Thorn, and other towns, as well as the landed proprietors and
the clergy of various districts, formed a league against them;
and, on the accession of Casimir IV., the third of the
Jagellons, to the Polish throne (1447), all Western Prussia
revolted from the knights and placed itself under his
protection. A terrific war ensued, which was brought to a
close in 1466 by the peace of Thorn. By this notable treaty,
the independent sovereignty of the Teutonic order in the
countries they had held for two centuries was extinguished—the
whole of Western Prussia, with the city of Marienburg, and
other districts, being annexed to the Polish crown, with
guarantees for the preservation of their own forms of
administration; and the knights being allowed to retain
certain districts of Eastern Prussia, only as vassals of
Poland. Thus Poland was once more in possession of that
necessity of its existence as a great European state—a
seaboard on the Baltic. Exulting in an acquisition for which
they had so long struggled, the Poles are said to have danced
with joy as they looked on the blue waves and could call them
their own. Casimir IV., the hero of this important passage in
Polish history, died in 1492; and, though during the reigns of
his successors—John Albertus (1492-1501), and Alexander
(1501-1506)—the Polish territories suffered some diminution in
the direction of Russia, the fruits of the treaty of Thorn
were enjoyed in peace. In the reign of the sixth of the
Jagellonidæ, however—Sigismund I. (1506-1547)—the Teutonic
Knights made an attempt to throw off their allegiance to
Poland.
{2547}
The attempt was made in singular circumstances, and led to a
singular conclusion. The grand-master of the Teutonic order at
this time was Albert of Brandenburg …, a descendant [in the
Anspach branch] of that astute Hohenzollern family which in
1411 had possessed itself of the Marquisate of Brandenburg.
Albert, carrying out a scheme entertained by the preceding
grand-master, refused homage for the Prussian territories of
his order to the Polish king Sigismund, and even prepared to
win back what the order had lost by the treaty of Thorn.
Sigismund, who was uncle to Albert, defeated his schemes, and
proved the superiority of the Polish armies over the forces of
the once great but now effete order. Albert found it his best
policy to submit, and this he did in no ordinary fashion. The
Reformation was then in the first flush of its progress over
the Continent, and the Teutonic Order of Knights, long a
practical anachronism in Europe, was losing even the slight
support it still had in surrounding public opinion, as the new
doctrines changed men's ideas. What was more, the grand-master
himself imbibed Protestant opinions and was a disciple of
Luther and Melancthon. He resolved to bring down the fabric of
the order about his ears and construct for himself a secular
principality out of its ruins. Many of the knights shared or
were gained over to his views; so he married a princess, and
they took themselves wives—all becoming Protestants together,
with the exception of a few tough old knights who transferred
their chapter to Mergentheim in Würtemberg, where it remained,
a curious relic, till the time of Napoleon. The secularization
was formally completed at Cracow in April, 1525. There, in a
square before the royal palace, on a throne emblazoned with
the arms of Poland and Lithuania—a white eagle for the one,
and a mounted knight for the other—the Polish king Sigismund
received … the banner of the order, the knights standing by
and agreeing to the surrender. In return, Sigismund embraced
the late grand-master as Duke of Prussia, granting to him and
the knights the former possessions of the order, as secular
vassals of the Polish crown. The remainder of Sigismund's
reign was worthy of this beginning; and at no time was Poland
more flourishing than when his son, Sigismund II., the seventh
of the Jagellonidæ, succeeded him on the throne. During the
wise reign of this prince (1547-1572), whose tolerant policy
in the matter of the great religious controversy then
agitating Europe is not his least title to credit, Poland lost
nothing of her prosperity or her greatness; and one of its
last transactions was the consummation of the union between
the two nations of Poland and Lithuania by their formal
incorporation into one kingdom at the Diet of Lublin (July 1,
1569). But, alas for Poland, this seventh of the Jagellonidæ
was also the last, and, on his death in 1572, Poland entered
on that career of misery and decline, with the reminiscences
of which her name is now associated."
_Poland: her History and Prospects
(Westminster Review, January, 1855)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Tuttle,
History of Prussia, to Frederick the Great,
chapter 4._
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Poland,
book 1, chapter 3._
POLAND: A. D. 1439.
Election of Ladislaus III. to the throne of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.
POLAND: A. D. 1471-1479.
War with Matthias of Hungary.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1471-1487.
POLAND: A. D. 1505-1588.
Enslavement of the peasantry.
See SLAVERY, MEDIÆVAL: POLAND.
POLAND: A. D. 1573.
Election of Henry of Valois to the throne.
The Pacta Conventa.
On the election of Henry of Valois, Duke of Anjou, to the
Polish throne (see FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576), he was required
to subscribe to a series of articles, known as the Pacta
Conventa (and sometimes called the Articles of Henry), which
were intended to be the basis of all future covenants between
the Poles and their elective sovereigns. The chief articles of
the Pacta Conventa were the following:
"1. That the king should not in the remotest degree attempt to
influence the senate in the choice of a successor; but should
leave inviolable to the Polish nobles the right of electing
one at his decease.
2. That he should not assume the title of 'master' and 'heir'
of the monarchy, as borne by all preceding kings.
3. That he should observe the treaty of peace made with the
dissidents.
4. That he should not declare war, or dispatch the nobles on
any expedition, without the previous sanction of the diet.
5. That he should not impose taxes or contributions of any
description.
6. That he should not have any authority to appoint
ambassadors to foreign courts.
7. That in case of different opinions prevailing among the
senators, he should espouse such only as were in accordance
with the laws, and clearly advantageous to the nation.
8. That he should be furnished with a permanent council, the
members of which (16 in number; viz. 4 bishops, 4 palatines,
and 8 castellans) should be changed every half year, and
should be selected by the ordinary diets.
9. That a general diet should be convoked every two years, or
oftener, if required.
10. That the duration of each diet should not exceed six
weeks.
11. That no dignities or benefices should be conferred on
other than natives.
12. That the king should neither marry nor divorce a wife
without the permission of the diet.
The violation of any one of these articles, even in spirit,
was to be considered by the Poles as absolving them from their
oaths of allegiance, and as empowering them to elect another
ruler."
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Poland,
book 2, chapter 1._
POLAND: A. D. 1574-1590.
Disgraceful abandonment of the throne by Henry of Valois.
Election of Stephen Batory.
His successful wars with Russia, and his death.
Election of Sigismund III., of Sweden.
The worthless French prince, Henry of Valois, whom the Poles
had chosen to be their king, and whom they crowned at Cracow,
on the 21st of February, 1574, "soon sighed for the banks of
the Seine: amidst the ferocious people whose authority he was
constrained to recognize, and who despised him for his
imbecility, he had no hope of enjoyment. To escape their
factions, their mutinies, their studied insults, he shut
himself up within his palace, and, with the few countrymen
whom he had been permitted to retain near his person, he
abandoned himself to idleness and dissipation. … By the death
of his brother [Charles IX. king of France], who died on the
30th of May, 1574, he was become heir to the crown of the
Valois. His first object was to conceal the letters which
announced that event, and to flee before the Poles could have
any suspicion of his intention. The intelligence, however,
transpired through another channel.
{2548}
His senators advised him to convoke a diet, and, in conformity
with the laws, to solicit permission of a short absence while
he settled the affairs of his new heritage. Such permission
would willingly have been granted him, more willingly still
had he proposed an eternal separation; but he feared the
ambition of his brother the duke of Alençon, who secretly
aspired to the throne; and he resolved to depart without it.
He concealed his extraordinary purpose with great art," and
achieved a most contemptible success in carrying it
out,—stealing away from his kingdom like a thief, on the night
of the 18th of June. "Some letters found on a table in his
apartment attempted to account for his precipitate departure
by the urgency of the troubles in his hereditary kingdom; yet
he did not reach Lyons till the following year. In a diet
assembled at Warsaw, it was resolved that if the king did not
return by the 12th of May, 1575, the throne should be declared
vacant. Deputies were sent to acquaint him with the decree. …
After the expiration of the term, the interregnum was
proclaimed in the diet of Stenzyca, and a day appointed for a
new election. After the deposition of Henry [now become Henry
III. of France], no less than five foreign and two native
princes were proposed as candidates for the crown. The latter,
however, refused to divide the suffrages of the republic,
wisely preferring the privilege of electing kings to the
honour of being elected themselves. The primate, many of the
bishops, and several palatines, declared in favour of an
Austrian prince; but the greater portion of the diet
(assembled on the plains opposite to Warsaw) were for the
princess Anne, sister of Sigismund Augustus, whose hand they
resolved to confer on Stephen Batory, duke of Transylvania.
Accordingly, Stephen was proclaimed king by Zamoyski, starost
of Beltz, whose name was soon to prove famous in the annals of
Poland. On the other hand, Uchanski the primate nominated the
emperor Maximilian, who was proclaimed by the marshal of the
crown: this party, however, being too feeble to contend with
the great body of the equestrian order, despatched messengers
to hasten the arrival of the emperor; but Zamoyski acted with
still greater celerity. While his rival was busied about
certain conditions, which the party of the primate forced on
Maximilian, Batory arrived in Poland, married the princess,
subscribed to every thing required from him, and was solemnly
crowned. A civil war appeared inevitable, but the death of
Maximilian happily averted the disaster. … But though Poland
and Lithuania thus acknowledged the new king, Prussia, which
had espoused the interests of the Austrian, was less
tractable. The country, however, was speedily reduced to
submission, with the exception of Dantzic, which not only
refused to own him, but insisted on its recognition by the
diet as a free and independent republic. … Had the Dantzickers
sought no other glory than that of defending their city, had
they resolutely kept within their entrenchments, they might
have beheld the power of their king shattered against the
bulwarks below them; but the principles which moved them
pushed them on to temerity. … Their rashness cost them dear;
the loss of 8,000 men compelled them again to seek the shelter
of their walls, and annihilated their hope of ultimate
success. Fortunately they had to deal with a monarch of
extraordinary moderation. … Their submission [1577] disarmed
his resentment, and left him at liberty to march against other
enemies. During this struggle of Stephen with his rebellious
subjects, the Muscovites had laid waste Livonia. To punish
their audacity, and wrest from their grasp the conquests they
had made during the reign of his immediate predecessors, was
now his object. … Success every where accompanied him.
Polotsk, Sakol, Turowla, and many other places, submitted to
his arms. The investiture of the duchy (Polotsk, which the
Muscovites had reduced in the time of Sigismund I.) he
conferred on Gottard duke of Courland. On the approach of
winter he returned, to obtain more liberal supplies for the
ensuing campaign. Nothing can more strongly exhibit the
different characters of the Poles and Lithuanians than the
reception he met from each. At Wilna his splendid successes
procured him the most enthusiastic welcome; at Warsaw they
caused him to be received with sullen discontent. The Polish
nobles were less alive to the glory of their country than to
the preservation of their monstrous privileges, which, they
apprehended, might be endangered under so vigilant and able a
ruler. With the aid, however, of Zamoyski and some other
leading barons, he again wrung a few supplies from that most
jealous of bodies, a diet. … Stephen now directed his course
towards the province of Novogorod: neither the innumerable
marshes, nor the vast forests of these steppes, which had been
untrodden by soldier's foot since the days of Witold, could
stop his progress; he triumphed over every obstacle, and, with
amazing rapidity, reduced the chief fortified towns between
Livonia and that ancient mistress of the North. But his troops
were thinned by fatigue, and even victory; reinforcements were
peremptorily necessary; and though in an enfeebled state of
health, he again returned to collect them. … The succeeding
campaign promised to be equally glorious, when the tsar, by
adroitly insinuating his inclination to unite the Greek with
the Latin church, prevailed on the pope to interpose for
peace. To the wishes of the papal see the king was ever ready
to pay the utmost deference. The conditions were advantageous
to the republic. If she surrendered her recent conquests—which
she could not possibly have retained—she obtained an
acknowledgment of her rights of sovereignty over Livonia; and
Polotsk, with several surrounding fortresses, was annexed to
Lithuania." Stephen Batory died in 1586, having vainly advised
the diet to make the crown hereditary, and avert the ruin of
the nation. The interregnum which ensued afforded opportunity
for a fierce private war between the factions of the
Zborowskis and the Zamoyskis. Then followed a disputed
election of king, one party proclaiming the archduke
Maximilian of Austria, the other Sigismund, prince royal of
Sweden—a scion of the Jagellonic family—and both sides
resorting to arms. Maximilian was defeated and taken prisoner,
and only regained his freedom by relinquishing his claims to
the Polish crown.
_S. A. Dunham,
History of Poland,
book 2, chapter 1._
{2549}
POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.
Anarchy organized by the Nobles.
The extraordinary Constitution imposed by them on the country.
The Liberum Veto and its effects.
"On the death of the last Jagellon, 1573, at a time when
Bohemia and Hungary were deprived of the power of electing
their kings, when Sweden renounced this right in favour of its
monarchs, Poland renewed its privilege in its most
comprehensive form. At a time when European monarchs gradually
deprived the great feudal barons of all share in the
administration of the law, … the Polish nobles destroyed the
last vestiges of the royal prerogative. … In the year 1578 the
kings lost the right of bestowing the patent of nobility,
which was made over to the diet. The kings had no share in the
legislation, as the laws were made in every interregnum. As
soon as the throne became vacant by the death of a king, and
before the diet appointed a successor, the nobles of the
provinces assembled to examine into the administration of the
late king and his senate. Any law that was not approved of
could be repealed and new arrangements proposed, which became
law if the votes of the diet were unanimous. This unanimity
was most easily obtained when a law threatened the individual
or when the royal prerogative was to be decreased. … The king
had no share in the administration, and even the most urgent
circumstances did not justify his acting without the
co-operation of the senate [which consisted of 17 archbishops
and bishops, 33 palatines or woiwodes—'war-leaders'—who were
governors of provinces or palatinates, and 85 castellans, who
were originally commanders in the royal cities and fortresses,
but who had become, like the woiwodes, quite independent of
the king]. The senate deprived the king of the power of making
peace or war. … If there was a hostile invasion, war became a
matter of course, but it was carried on, on their own account,
by the palatines most nearly concerned, and often without the
assistance of the king. … Bribery, intrigue and party spirit
were the only means of influence that could be employed by a
king, who was excluded from the administration, who was
without domains, without private property or settled revenue,
who was surrounded by officers he could not depose and by
judges who could be deposed, and who was, in short, without
real power of any sort. The senate itself was deprived of its
power, and the representatives of the nobles seized upon the
highest authority. … They alone held the public offices and
the highest ecclesiastical benefices. They filled the seats of
the judges exclusively, and enjoyed perfect immunity from
taxes, duties, &c. … Another great evil from which the
republic suffered was the abuse of the liberum veto, which,
dangerous as it was in itself, had become law in 1652." This
gave the power of veto to every single voice in the assemblies
of the nobles, or in the meetings of the deputies who
represented them. Nothing could be adopted without entire
unanimity; and yet deputies to the diet were allowed no
discretion. "They received definite instructions as to the
demands they were to bring forward and the concessions they
were to make. … One step only was wanting before unanimity of
votes became an impossibility, and anarchy was completely
organized. This step was taken when individual palatines
enjoined their deputies to oppose every discussion at the
diet, till their own proposals had been heard and acceded to.
Before long, several deputies received the same instructions,
and thus the diet was in fact dissolved before it was opened.
Other deputies refused to consent to any proposals, if those
of their own province were not accepted; so that the veto of
one deputy in a single transaction could bring about the
dissolution of the entire diet, and the exercise of the royal
authority was thus suspended for two years [since the diet
could only be held every other year, to last no longer than a
fortnight, and to sit during daylight, only]. … No law could
be passed, nothing could be resolved upon. The army received
no pay. Provinces were desolated by enemies, and none came to
their aid. Justice was delayed, the coinage was debased; in
short, Poland ceased for the next two years to exist as a
state. Every time that a rupture occurred in the diet it was
looked on as a national calamity. The curse of posterity was
invoked on that deputy who had occasioned it, and on his
family. In order to save themselves from popular fury, these
deputies were accustomed to hand in their protest in writing,
and then to wander about, unknown and without rest, cursed by
the nation."
_Count Moltke,
Poland: an Historical Sketch,
chapter 3._
"It was not till 1652 … that this principle of equality, or
the free consent of every individual Pole of the privileged
class to every act done in the name of the nation, reached its
last logical excess. In that year, the king John Casimir
having embroiled himself with Sweden, a deputy in the Diet was
bold enough to use the right which by theory belonged to him,
and by his single veto, not only arrest the preparations for a
war with Sweden, but also quash all the proceedings of the
Diet. Such was the first case of the exercise of that liberum
veto of which we hear so much in subsequent Polish history,
and which is certainly the greatest curiosity, in the shape of
a political institution, with which the records of any nation
present us. From that time every Pole walked over the earth a
conscious incarnation of a power such as no mortal man out of
Poland possessed—that of putting a spoke into the whole
legislative machinery of his country, and bringing it to a
dead lock by his own single obstinacy; and, though the
exercise of the power was a different thing from its
possession, yet every now and then a man was found with nerve
enough to put it in practice. … There were, of course, various
remedies for this among an inventive people. One, and the most
obvious and most frequent, was to knock the vetoist down and
throttle him; another, in cases where he had a party at his
back, was to bring soldiers round the Diet and coerce it into
unanimity. There was also the device of what were called
confederations; that is, associations of the nobles
independent of the Diet, adopting decrees with the sanction of
the king, and imposing them by force on the country. These
confederations acquired a kind of legal existence in the
intervals between the Diets."
_Poland: her History and Prospects
(Westminster Review, January, 1855)._
POLAND: A. D. 1586-1629.
Election of Sigismund of Sweden to the throne.
His succession to the Swedish crown and his deposition.
His claims and the consequent war.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES(SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604;
and 1611-1629.
{2550}
POLAND: A. D. 1590-1648.
Reigns of Sigismund III. and Ladislaus IV.
Wars with the Muscovites, the Turks and the Swedes.
Domestic discord in the kingdom.
"The new king, who was elected out of respect for the memory
of the house of Jaguello (being the son of the sister of
Sigismond Augustus), was not the kind of monarch Poland at
that time required. … He was too indolent to take the reins of
government into his own hands, but placed them in those of the
Jesuits and his German favourites. Not only did he thereby
lose the affections of his people, but he also lost the crown
of Sweden, to which, at his father's death, he was the
rightful heir. This throne was wrested from him by his uncle
Charles, the brother of the late king.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1523-1604.
This usurpation by Charles was the cause of a war between
Sweden and Poland, which, although conducted with great skill
by the illustrious generals Zamoyski and Chodkiewicz,
terminated disastrously for Poland, for, after this war, a
part of Livonia remained in the hands of the Swedes." During
the troubled state of affairs at Moscow which followed the
death, in 1584, of Ivan the Terrible, Sigismond interfered and
sent an army which took possession of the Russian capital and
remained in occupation of it for some time.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
"As a consequence … the Muscovites offered the throne of the
Czar to Ladislas, the eldest son of the King of Poland, on
condition that he would change his religion and become a
member of 'the Orthodox Church.' Sigismond III., who was a
zealous Catholic, and under the influence of the Jesuits,
wishing rather to convert the Muscovites to the Catholic
Church, would not permit Ladislas to change his faith—refused
the throne of the Czar for his son. … By the peace concluded
at Moscow, 1619, the fortress of Smolenski and a considerable
part of Muscovy remained in the hands of the Poles. …
Sigismond III., whose reign was so disastrous to Poland, kept
up intimate relations with the house of Austria. The Emperor
invited him to take part with him … in what is historically
termed 'the Thirty Years' War.' Sigismond complied with this
request, and sent the Emperor of Austria some of his Cossack
regiments. … Whilst the Emperor was on the one hand engaged in
'the Thirty Years' War,' he was on the other embroiled with
Turkey. The Sultan, in revenge for the aid which the Poles had
afforded the Austrians, entered Moldavia with a considerable
force. Sigismond III. sent his able general Zolkiewski against
the Turks, but as the Polish army was much smaller than that
of the Turks, it was defeated on the battlefield of Cecora
[1621], in Moldavia, [its] general killed, and many of his
soldiers taken prisoners. After this unfortunate campaign …
the Sultan Osman, at the head of 300,000 Mussulmans, confident
in the number and valour of his army, marched towards the
frontier of Poland with the intention of subjugating the
entire kingdom. At this alarming news a Diet was convoked in
all haste, at which it was determined that there should be a
'levée en masse,' in order to drive away the terrible
Mussulman scourge. But before this levée en masse could be
organized, the Hetman Chodkiewicz, who had succeeded
Zolkiewski as commander-in-chief, crossed the river Dniester
with 35,000 soldiers and 30,000 Cossacks, camped under the
walls of the fortress of Chocim [or Kotzim, or Khotzim, or
Choczim] and there awaited the enemy, to whom, on his
appearance, he gave battle [September 28, 1622], and,
notwithstanding the disproportion of the two armies, the Turks
were utterly routed. The Moslems left on the battlefield,
besides the dead, guns, tents, and provisions. … After this
brilliant victory a peace was concluded with Turkey; and I
think I am justified in saying that, by this victory, the
whole of Western Europe was saved from Mussulman invasion. …
The successful Polish general unhappily did not long survive
his brilliant victory. … While these events were taking place
in the southern provinces, Gustavus Adolphus, who had
succeeded to the throne of Sweden, marched into the northern
province of Livonia, where there were no Polish troops to
resist him (all having been sent against the Turks), and took
possession of this Polish province.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1611-1629.
Gustavus Adolphus, however, proposed to restore it to Poland
on condition that Sigismond III. would renounce all claim to
the crown of Sweden, to which the Polish sovereign was the
rightful heir. But in this matter, as in all previous ones,
the Polish king acted with the same obstinacy, and the same
disregard for the interests of the kingdom. He would not
accept the terms offered by Gustavus Adolphus, and by his
refusal Poland lost the entire province of Livonia with the
exception of the city of Dynabourg." Sigismond III. died in
1632, and his eldest son, Ladislas IV., "was immediately
elected King of Poland, a proceeding which spared the kingdom
all the miseries attendant on an interregnum. In 1633, after
the successful campaign against the Muscovites, in which the
important fortified city of Smolensk, as well as other
territory, was taken, a treaty advantageous to Poland was
concluded. Soon afterwards, through the intervention of
England and France, another treaty was made between Poland and
Sweden by which the King of Sweden restored to Poland a part
of Prussia which had been annexed by Sweden. Thus the reign of
Ladislas IV, commenced auspiciously with regard to external
matters. … Unhappily the bitter quarrels of the nobles were
incessant; their only unanimity consisted in trying to foil
the good intentions of their kings." Ladislas IV. died in
1648, and was succeeded by his brother, John Casimir, who had
entered the Order of the Jesuits some years before, and had
been made a cardinal by the Pope, but who was now absolved
from his vows and permitted to marry.
_K. Wolski,
Poland,
lectures 11-12._
POLAND: A. D. 1610-1612.
Intervention in Russia.
Occupation of and expulsion from Moscow.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1533-1682.
POLAND: A. D. 1648-1654.
The great revolt of the Cossacks.
Their allegiance transferred to the Russian Czar.
Since 1320, the Cossacks of the Ukraine had acknowledged
allegiance, first, to the Grand Duke of Lithuania, and
afterwards to the king of Poland on the two crowns becoming
united in the Jagellon family [see COSSACKS]. They had long
been treated by the Poles with harshness and insolence, and in
the time of the hetman Bogdan Khmelnitski, who had personally
suffered grievous wrongs at the hands of the Poles, they were
ripe for revolt (1648). "His standard was joined by hordes of
Tatars from Bessarabia and the struggle partook to a large
extent of the nature of a holy war, as the Cossacks and
Malo-Russians generally were of the Greek faith, and their
violence was directed against the Roman Catholics and Jews.
{2551}
It would be useless to encumber our pages with the details of
the brutal massacres inflicted by the infuriated peasants in
this jacquerie; unfortunately their atrocities had been
provoked by the cruelties of their masters. Bogdan succeeded
in taking Lemberg, and became master of all the palatinate,
with the exception of Zamosc, a fortress into which the Polish
authorities retreated. On the election of John Casimir as king
of Poland, he at once opened negotiations with the successful
Cossack, and matters were about to be arranged peacefully.
Khmelnitski accepted the 'bulava' of a hetman which was
offered him by the king. The Cossacks demanded the restoration
of their ancient privileges, the removal of the detested
Union—as the attempt to amalgamate the Greek and Latin
Churches was called—the banishment of the Jesuits from the
Ukraine, and the expulsion of the Jews, with other conditions.
They were rejected, however, as impossible, and Prince
Wisniowiecki, taking advantage of the security into which the
Cossacks were lulled, fell upon them treacherously and
defeated them with great slaughter. All compromise now seemed
hopeless, but the desertion of his Tatar allies made Bogdan
again listen to terms at Zborow. The peace, however, was of
short duration, and on the 28th of June, 1651, at the battle
of Beresteczko in Galicia, the hosts of Bogdan were defeated
with great slaughter. After this engagement Bogdan saw that he
had no chance of withstanding the Poles by his own resources,
and accordingly sent an embassy to Moscow in 1652, offering to
transfer himself and his confederates to the allegiance of the
Tsar. The negotiations were protracted for some time, and were
concluded at Pereiaslavl, when Bogdan and seventeen,
Malo-Russian regiments took the oath to Buturlin, the Tsar's
commissioner. Quite recently a monument has been erected to
the Cossack chief at Kiev, but he seems, to say the least, to
have been a man of doubtful honesty. Since this time the
Cossacks have formed an integral part of the Russian Empire."
_W. R. Morfill,
The Story of Russia,
chapter 6._
ALSO IN:
_Count H. Krasinski,
The Cossacks of the Ukraine,
chapter 1._
POLAND: A. D. 1652.
First exercise of the Liberum Veto.
See POLAND: A. D. 1578-1652.
POLAND: A. D. 1656-1657.
Rapid and ephemeral conquest by Charles X. of Sweden.
Loss of the Feudal overlordship of Prussia.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697;
and BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1640-1688.
POLAND: A. D. 1668-1696.
Abdication of John Casimir.
War with the Turks.
Election and reign of John Sobieski.
"In 1668, John Casimir, whose disposition had always been that
of a monk rather than that of a king, resigned his throne, and
retired to France, where he died as Abbe de St. Germain in
1672. He left the kingdom shorn of a considerable part of its
ancient dominions; for, besides that portion of it which had
been annexed to Muscovy, Poland sustained another loss in this
reign by the erection of the Polish dependency of Brandenburg
[Prussia] into an independent state—the germ of the present
Prussian kingdom. For two years after the abdication of John
Casimir, the country was in a state of turmoil and confusion,
caused partly by the recent calamities, and partly by
intrigues regarding the succession; but in 1670, a powerful
faction of the inferior nobles secured the election of Michael
Wisniowiecki, an amiable but silly young man. His election
gave rise to great dissatisfaction among the Polish grandees;
and it is probable that a civil war would have broken out, had
not the Poles been called upon to use all their energies
against their old enemies the Turks. Crossing the
south-eastern frontier of Poland with an immense army, these
formidable foes swept all before them. Polish valour, even
when commanded by the greatest of Polish geniuses, was unable
to check their progress; and in 1672 a dishonourable treaty
was concluded, by which Poland ceded to Turkey a section of
her territories, and engaged to pay to the sultan an annual
tribute of 22,000 ducats. No sooner was this ignominious
treaty concluded, than the Polish nobles became ashamed of it;
and it was resolved to break the peace, and challenge Turkey
once more to a decisive death-grapple. Luckily, at this moment
Wisniowiecki died; and on the 20th of April 1674, the Polish
diet elected, as his successor, John Sobieski—a name
illustrious in the history of Poland. … He was of a noble
family, his father being castellan of Cracow, and the
proprietor of princely estates; and his mother being descended
from Zalkiewski, one of the most celebrated generals that
Poland had produced. … In the year 1660, he was one of the
commanders of the Polish army sent to repel the Russians, who
were ravaging the eastern provinces of the kingdom. A great
victory which he gained at Slobadyssa over the Muscovite
general Sheremetoff, established his military reputation, and
from that time the name of Sobieski was known over all Eastern
Europe. His fame increased during the six years which
followed, till he outshone all his contemporaries. He was
created by his sovereign, John Casimir, first the
Grand-marshal, and afterwards the Grand-hetman of the kingdom;
the first being the highest civil, and the second the highest
military, dignity in Poland, and the two having never before
been held in conjunction by the same individual. These
dignities, having once been conferred on Sobieski, could not
be revoked; for, by the Polish constitution, the king, though
he had the power, to confer honours, was not permitted to
resume them. … When John Casimir abdicated the throne,
Sobieski, retaining his office of Grand-hetman under his
successor, the feeble Wisniowiecki, was commander-in-chief of
the Polish forces against the Turks. In the campaigns of 1671
and 1672, his successes against this powerful enemy were
almost miraculous. But all his exertions were insufficient, in
the existing condition of the republic, to deliver it from the
terror of the impetuous Mussulmans. In 1672, as we have
already informed our readers, a disgraceful truce was
concluded between the Polish diet and the sultan. … When …
Sobieski, as Grand-hetman, advised the immediate rupture of
the dishonourable treaty with the Turks, [the] approval was
unanimous and enthusiastic. Raising an army of 30,000 men, not
without difficulty, Sobieski marched against the Turks. He
laid siege to the fortress of Kotzim, garrisoned by a strong
Turkish force, and hitherto deemed impregnable. The fortress
was taken; the provinces of Moldavia and Walachia yielded; the
Turks hastily retreated across the Danube; and 'Europe thanked
God for the most signal success which, for three centuries,
Christendom had gained over the Infidel.'
{2552}
While the Poles were preparing to follow up their victory,
intelligence reached the camp that Wisniowiecki was dead. He
had died of a surfeit of apples sent him from Danzig. The army
returned home, to be present at the assembling of the diet for
the election of the new sovereign. The diet had already met
when Sobieski, and those of the Polish nobles who had been
with him, reached Warsaw. The electors were divided respecting
the claims of two candidates, both foreigners—Charles of
Lorraine, who was supported by Austria; and Philip of Neuburg,
who was supported by Louis XIV. of France. Many of the Polish
nobility had become so corrupt, that foreign gold and foreign
influence ruled the diet. In this case, the Austrian candidate
seemed to be most favourably received; but, as the diet was
engaged in the discussion, Sobieski entered, and taking his
place in the diet, proposed the Prince of Condé. A stormy
discussion ensued, in the midst of which the cry of 'Let a
Pole rule over Poland,' was raised by one of the nobles, who
further proposed that John Sobieski should be elected. The
proposition went with the humour of the assembly, and
Sobieski, under the title of John III., was proclaimed king of
Poland (1674). Sobieski accepted the proffered honour, and
immediately set about improving the national affairs, founding
an institution for the education of Polish nobles, and
increasing the army. … After several battles of lesser moment
with his Turkish foes, Sobieski prepared for a grand effort;
but before he could mature his plans, the Pasha of Damascus
appeared with an army of 300,000 men on the Polish frontier,
and threatened the national subjugation. With the small force
he could immediately collect, amounting to not more than
10,000 soldiers, Sobieski opposed this enormous force, taking
up his position in two small villages on the banks of the
Dniester, where he withstood a bombardment of 20 days. Food
and ammunition had failed, but still the Poles held out.
Gathering the balls and shells which the enemy threw within
their entrenchments, they thrust them into their own cannons
and mortars, and dashed them back against the faces of the
Turks, who surrounded them on all sides at the distance of a
musket–shot. The besiegers were surprised, and slackened their
fire. At length, early in the morning of the 14th of October
1676, they saw the Poles issue slowly out of their
entrenchments in order of battle, and apparently confident of
victory. A superstitious fear came over them at such a strange
sight. No ordinary mortal, they thought, could dare such a
thing; and the Tartars cried out that it was useless to fight
against the wizard king. The pasha himself was superior to the
fears of his men; but knowing that succours were approaching
from Poland, he offered an honourable peace, which was
accepted, and Sobieski returned home in triumph. Seven years
of peace followed. These were spent by Sobieski in performing
his ordinary duties as king of Poland—duties which the
constant jealousies and discords of the nobles rendered by no
means easy. … It was almost a relief to the hero when, in
1683, a threatened invasion of Christendom by the Turks called
him again to the field. … After completely clearing Austria of
the Turks, Sobieski returned to Poland, again to be harassed
with political and domestic annoyances.
See HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
… Clogged and confined by an absurd system of government, to
which the nobles tenaciously clung, his genius was prevented
from employing itself with effect upon great national objects.
He died suddenly on Corpus Christi Day, in the year 1696; and
'with him,' says the historian, 'the glory of Poland descended
to the tomb.' On the death of Sobieski, the crown of Poland
was disposed of to the highest bidder. The competitors were
James Sobieski, the son of John; the Prince of Conti; the
Elector of Bavaria; and Frederick Augustus, Elector of Saxony.
The last was the successful candidate, having bought over one
half of the Polish nobility, and terrified the other half by
the approach of his Saxon troops. He had just succeeded to the
electorate of Saxony, and was already celebrated as one of the
strongest and most handsome men in Europe. Augustus
entertained a great ambition to be a conqueror, and the
particular province which he wished to annex to Poland was
Livonia, on the Baltic—a province which had originally
belonged to the Teutonic Knights, for which the Swedes, Poles,
and Russians had long contended; but which had now, for nearly
a century, been in the possession of Sweden."
_History of Poland
(Chambers's Miscellany, number 29 (volume 4)._
ALSO IN:
_A. T. Palmer,
Life of John Sobieski._
POLAND: A. D. 1683.
Sobieski's deliverance of Vienna from the Turks.
See HUNGARY; A. D. 1668-1683.
POLAND: A. D. 1684-1696.
War of the Holy League against the Turks.
See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.
POLAND: A. D. 1696-1698.
Disputed Election of a King.
The crown gained by Augustus of Saxony.
On the death of Sobieski, Louis XIV., of France, put forward
the Prince of Conti as a candidate for the vacant Polish
throne. "The Emperor, the Pope, the Jesuits and Russia united
in supporting the Elector Augustus of Saxony. The Elector had
just abjured, in view of the throne of Poland, and the Pope
found it quite natural to recompense the hereditary chief of
the Lutheran party for having reëntered the Roman Church. The
Jesuits, who were only too powerful in Poland, feared the
Jansenist relations of Conti. As to the young Czar Peter, he
wished to have Poland remain his ally, his instrument against
the Turk and the Swede, and feared lest the French spirit
should come to reorganize that country. He had chosen his
candidate wisely: the Saxon king was to begin the ruin of
Poland! The financial distress of France did not permit the
necessary sacrifices, in an affair wherein money was to play
an important part, to be made in time. The Elector of Saxony,
on the contrary, exhausted his States to purchase partisans
and soldiers. The Prince de Conti had, nevertheless, the
majority, and was proclaimed King at Warsaw, June 27, 1697;
but the minority proclaimed and called the Elector, who
hastened with Saxon troops, and was consecrated King of Poland
at Cracow (September 15). Conti, retarded by an English fleet
that had obstructed his passage, did not arrive by sea till
September 26 at Dantzic, which refused to receive him. The
prince took with him neither troops nor money. The Elector had
had, on the contrary, all the time necessary to organize his
resources. The Russians were threatening Lithuania. Conti,
abandoned by a great part of his adherents, abandoned the
undertaking, and returned to France in the month of November.
… In the following year Augustus of Saxony was recognized as
King of Poland by all Europe, even by France."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 2, chapter 4._
{2553}
POLAND: A. D. 1699.
The Peace of Carlowitz with the Sultan.
See HUNGARY:. A. D. 1683-1699.
POLAND: A. D. 1700.
Aggressive league with Russia and Denmark
against Charles XII. of Sweden.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1697-1700.
POLAND: A. D. 1701-1707.
Subjugation by Charles XII. of Sweden.
Deposition of Augustus from the throne.
Election of Stanislaus Leczinski.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1701-1707.
POLAND: A. D. 1709.
Restoration of Augustus to the throne.
Expulsion of Stanislaus Leczinski.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1707-1718.
POLAND: A. D. 1720.
Peace with Sweden.
Recognition of Augustus.
Stanislaus allowed to call himself king.
See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1719-1721.
POLAND: A. D. 1732-1733.
The election to the throne a European question.
France against Russia, Austria and Prussia.
Triumph of the three powers.
The crown renewed to the House of Saxony.
"It became clear that before long a struggle would take place
for the Crown of Poland, in which the powers of Europe must
interest themselves very closely. Two parties will compete for
that uneasy throne: on the one side will stand the northern
powers, supporting the claims of the House of Saxony, which
was endeavouring to make the Crown hereditary and to restrict
it to the Saxon line; on the other side we shall find France
alone, desiring to retain the old elective system, and to
place on the throne some prince, who, much beholden to her,
should cherish French influences, and form a centre of
resistance against the dominance of the northern powers.
England stands neutral: the other powers are indifferent or
exhausted. With a view to the coming difficulty, Russia,
Austria, and Prussia, made a secret agreement in 1732, by
which they bound themselves to resist all French influences in
Poland. With this pact begins that system of nursing and
interferences with which the three powers pushed the 'sick man
of the North' to its ruin; it is the first stage towards the
Partition-treaties. Early in 1733 Augustus II of Poland died:
the Poles dreading these powerful neighbours, and drawn, as
ever, by a subtle sympathy towards France, at once took steps
to resist dictation, declared that they would elect none but a
native prince, sent envoys to demand French help, and summoned
Stanislaus Leczinski to Warsaw. Leczinski had been the protege
of Charles XII, who had set him on the Polish throne in 1704;
with the fall of the great Swede the little Pole also fell
(1712); after some vicissitudes he quietly settled at
Weissenburg, whence his daughter Marie went to ascend the
throne of France as spouse of Louis XV (1725). Now in 1733 the
national party in Poland re-elected him their king, by a vast
majority of votes: there was, however, an Austro-Russian
faction among the nobles, and these, supported by strong
armies of Germans and Russians, nominated Augustus III of
Saxony to the throne: he had promised the Empress Anne to cede
Courland to Russia, and Charles VI he had won over by
acknowledging the Pragmatic Sanction. War thus became
inevitable: the French majority had no strength with which to
maintain their candidate against the forces of Russia and
Austria; and France, instead of affording Stanislaus effective
support at Warsaw, declared war against Austria. The luckless
King was obliged to escape from Warsaw, and took refuge in
Danzig, expecting French help: all that came was a single ship
and 1,500 men, who, landing at the mouth of the Vistula, tried
in vain to break the Russian lines. Their aid thus proving
vain, Danzig capitulated, and Stanislaus, a broken refugee,
found his way, with many adventures, back to France; Poland
submitted to Augustus III."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
book 6, chapter 2 (volume 3)._
POLAND: A. D. 1763-1773.
The First Partition and the events which led to it.
The respective shares of Russia, Austria and Prussia.
"In 1762, Catherine II. ascended the throne of Russia.
Everybody knows what ambition filled the mind of this woman;
how she longed to bring two quarters of the globe under her
rule, or under her influence; and how, above all, she was bent
on playing a great part in the affairs of Western Europe.
Poland lay between Europe and her empire; she was bound,
therefore, to get a firm footing in Poland. … On the death of
Augustus III., therefore, she would permit no foreign prince
to mount the throne of Poland, but selected a native Polish
nobleman, from the numerous class of Russian hirelings, and
cast her eye upon a nephew of the Czartoriskys, Stanislaus
Poniatowsky, a former lover of her own. Above all things she
desired to perpetuate the chronic anarchy of Poland, so as to
ensure the weakness of that kingdom. … A further desire in
Catherine's mind arose from her own peculiar position in
Russia at that time. She had deposed her Imperial Consort,
deprived her son of the succession, and ascended the throne
without the shadow of a title. During the first years of her
reign, therefore, her situation was extremely critical." She
desired to render herself popular, and "she could find nothing
more in accordance with the disposition of the Russians … than
the protection of the Greek Catholics in Poland. Incredible as
it may seem, the frantic fanaticism of the Polish rulers had
begun, in the preceding twenty or thirty years, to limit and
partially to destroy, by harsh enactments, the ancient rights
of the Nonconformists. … In the year 1763 a complaint was
addressed to Catherine by Konisky, the Greek Bishop of
Mohilev, that 150 parishes of his diocese had been forcibly
Romanised by the Polish authorities. The Empress resolved to
recover for the dissenters in Poland at least some of their
ancient rights, and thus secure their eternal devotion to
herself, and inspire the Russian people with grateful
enthusiasm. At this time, however, King Augustus III. was
attacked by his last illness. A new king must soon be elected
at Warsaw, upon which occasion all the European Powers would
make their voices heard. Catherine, therefore, in the spring
of 1763, first sounded the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin, in
order, if possible, to gain common ground and their support
for her diplomatic action.
{2554}
The reception which her overtures met with at the two courts
was such as to influence the next ten years of the history of
Poland and Europe. … At Vienna, ever since Peter III. had
renounced the Austrian alliance, a very unfavourable feeling
towards Russia prevailed. … The result was that Austria came
to no definite resolution, but returned a sullen and evasive
reply. It was far otherwise with Frederick II. of Prussia.
That energetic and clear-sighted statesman had his faults, but
indecision had never been one of them. He agreed with
Catherine in desiring that Poland should remain weak. On the
other hand, he failed not to perceive that an excessive growth
of Russia, and an abiding Russian occupation of Poland, might
seriously threaten him. Nevertheless, he did not waver a
moment. … He needed a powerful ally. … Russia alone was left,
and he unhesitatingly seized her offered hand. … It was
proposed to him that six articles should be signed, with
certain secret provisions, by which were secured the election
of a native for the throne of Poland, the maintenance of the
Liberum Veto (i. e., of the anarchy of the nobles), and the
support of the Nonconformists; while it was determined to
prevent in Sweden all constitutional reforms. Frederick, who
was called upon to protect the West Prussian Lutherans, just
as the aid of Catherine had been sought by the Greek Bishop of
Mohilev, made no objection. After the death of King Augustus
III. of Poland, in October, 1763, Frederick signed the above
treaty, April 11th, 1764. This understanding between the two
Northern Powers caused no small degree of excitement at
Vienna. It was immediately feared that Prussia and Russia
would at once seize on Polish provinces. … This anxiety,
however, was altogether premature. No one at St. Petersburg
wished for a partition of Poland, but for increased influence
over the entire Polish realm, Frederick II., for his part, did
not aim at any territorial extension, but would abandon Poland
for the time to Russia, that he might secure peace for his
country by a Russian alliance. … Meanwhile, matters in Poland
proceeded according to the wishes of Catherine. Her path was
opened to her by the Poles themselves. It was at the call of
the Czartoriskys [a wealthy and powerful Polish family], that
a Russian army corps of 10,000 men entered the country,
occupied Warsaw, and put down the opposing party. It was under
the same protection that Stanislaus Poniatowsky was
unanimously elected King, on September 1st, 1764. But the
Czartoriskys were too clever. They intended, after having
become masters of Poland by the help of Russia, to reform the
constitution, to establish a regular administration, to
strengthen the Crown, and finally to bow the Russians out of
the kingdom." The Czartoriskys were soon at issue with the
Russian envoy, who commanded the support of all their
political opponents, together with that of all the religious
Nonconformists, both in the Greek Church and among the
Protestants. The King, too, went over to the latter, bought by
a Russian subsidy. But this Russian confederation was speedily
broken up, when the question of granting civil equality to the
Nonconformists came up for settlement. The Russians carried
the measure through by force and the act embodying it was
signed March 5, 1768. "It was just here that the conflagration
arose which first brought fearful evils upon the country
itself, and then threatened all Europe with incalculable
dangers. At Bar, in Podolia, two courageous men, Pulawski and
Krasinski, who were deeply revolted at the concession of civil
rights to heretics, set on foot a new Confederation to wage a
holy war for the unity and purity of the Church. … The Roman
Catholic population of every district joined the
Confederation. … A terrible war began in the southern
provinces. … The war on both sides was carried on with savage
cruelty; prisoners were tortured to death; neither person nor
property was spared. Other complications soon arose. … When …
the Russians, in eager pursuit of a defeated band of
Confederates, crossed the Turkish frontier, and the little
town of Balta was burnt during an obstinate fight, … the
Sultan, in an unexpected access [excess?] of fury, declared
war against Russia in October, 1768, because, as he stated in
his manifesto, he could no longer endure the wrong done to
Poland.
See TURKS: A. D. 1768-1774.
Thus, by a sudden turn of affairs, this Polish question had
become a European question of the first importance; and no one
felt the change more deeply than King Frederick II. He knew
Catherine well enough to be sure that she would not end the
war now begun with Turkey, without some material gain to
herself. It was equally plain that Austria would never leave
to Russia territorial conquests of any great extent in Turkey.
… The slightest occurrence might divide all Europe into two
hostile camps; and Germany would, as usual, from her central
position, have to suffer the worst evils of a general war.
Frederick II. was thrown into the greatest anxiety by this
danger, and he meditated continually how to prevent the
outbreak of war. The main question in his mind was how to
prevent a breach between Austria and Russia. Catherine wanted
to gain more territory, while Austria could not allow her to
make any conquests in Turkey. Frederick was led to inquire
whether greater compliance might not be shown at Vienna, if
Catherine, instead of a Turkish, were to take a Polish
province, and were also to agree, on her part, to an
annexation of Polish territory by Austria?" When this
scheme—put forward as one originating with Count Lynar, a
Saxon diplomatist—was broached at St. Petersburg, it met with
no encouragement; but subsequently the same plan took shape in
the mind of the young Emperor Joseph II., and he persuaded his
mother, Maria Theresa, to consent to it. Negotiations to that
end were opened with the Russian court. "After the foregoing
proceedings, it was easy for Russia and Prussia to come to a
speedy agreement. On February 17, 1772, a treaty was signed
allotting West Prussia to the King, and the Polish territories
east of the Dneiper and Duna to the Empress. The case of
Austria was a more difficult one. … The treaty of partition
was not signed by the three Powers until August, 1772. … The
Prussian and Austrian troops now entered Poland on every side,
simultaneously with the Russians. The bands of the
Confederates, which had hitherto kept the Russians on the
alert, now dispersed without further attempt at resistance. As
soon as external tranquillity had been restored, a Diet was
convened, in order at once to legalise the cession of the
provinces to the three Powers by a formal compact, and to
regulate the constitutional questions which had been unsettled
since the revolt of the Confederation of Bar.
{2555}
It took some time to arrive at this result, and many a bold
speech was uttered by the Poles; but it is sad to think that
the real object of every discussion was the fixing the amount
of donations and pensions which the individual senators and
deputies were to receive from the Powers for their votes.
Hereupon the act of cession was unanimously passed. … The
Liberum Veto, the anarchy of the nobles, and the impotence of
the Sovereign, were continued."
_H. von Sybel,
The First Partition of Poland
(Fortnightly Review, July, 1874, volume 22)._
"One's clear belief … is of two things: First, that, as
everybody admits, Friedrich had no real hand in starting the
notion of Partitioning Poland;—but that he grasped at it with
eagerness as the one way of saving Europe from War: Second,
what has been much less noticed, that, under any other hand,
it would have led Europe to War; and that to Friedrich is due
the fact that it got effected without such accompaniment.
Friedrich's share of Territory is counted to be in all, 9,465
English square miles; Austria's, 62,500; Russia's, 87,500,
between nine and ten times the amount of Friedrich's,—which
latter, however, as an anciently Teutonic Country, and as
filling-up the always dangerous gap between his Ost-Preussen
and him, has, under Prussian administration, proved much the
most valuable of the Three; and, next to Silesia, is
Friedrich's most important acquisition. September 13th, 1772,
it was at last entered upon,—through such waste-weltering
confusions, and on terms never yet unquestionable. Consent of
Polish Diet was not had for a year more; but that is worth
little record."
_T. Carlyle,
History of Frederick the Great,
book 21, chapter 4 (volume 6)._
ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter. 119 (volume 3)._
[IMAGE: EASTERN EUROPE IN 1768 A. D.
SHOWING SUBSEQUENT CHANGES DURING THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.
PARTITION OF POLAND ETC.
HOHENZOLLERN (PRUSSIA).
HABSBURG(AUSTRIA).
RUSSIAN.
POLISH.
TURKISH.
VENETIAN.
THE TERRITORY WON BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE
CENTURY BY THE THREE POWERS PRUSSIA.
AUSTRIA AND RUSSIA SHOWN IN BORDER
LINES OF THEIR RESPECTIVE COLORS.]
[IMAGE: CENTRAL EUROPE
AT THE PEACE OF CAMPO FORMIO (1797).
AUSTRIAN
PRUSSIAN
RUSSIAN
FRENCH
SWEDISH
DANISH
PAPAL STATES
ECCLESIASTICAL STATES OF THE EMPIRE.
THE BOUNDARY OF THE EMPIRE SHOWN BY THE HEAVY RED LINE.]
POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
The reformed Constitution of 1791
and its Russian strangulation.
"After the first Partition of Poland was completed in 1776,
that devoted country was suffered for sixteen years to enjoy
an interval of more undisturbed tranquillity than it had known
for a century. Russian armies ceased to vex it. The
dispositions of other foreign powers became more favourable.
Frederic II now entered on that spotless and honourable
portion of his reign, in which he made a just war for the
defence of the integrity of Bavaria, and of the independence
of Germany. … Attempts were not wanting to seduce him into new
enterprises against Poland. … As soon as Frederic returned to
counsels worthy of himself, he became unfit for the purposes
of the Empress, who, in 1780, refused to renew her alliance
with him, and found a more suitable instrument of her designs
in the restless character, and shallow understanding, of
Joseph II, whose unprincipled ambition was now released from
the restraint which his mother's scruples had imposed on it. …
Other powers now adopted a policy, of which the influence was
favourable to the Poles. Prussia, as she receded from Russia,
became gradually connected with England, Holland, and Sweden;
and her honest policy in the care of Bavaria placed her at the
head of all the independent members of the Germanic
Confederacy. Turkey declared war against Russia; and the
Austrian Government was disturbed by the discontent and
revolts which the precipitate innovations of Joseph had
excited in various provinces of the monarchy. A formidable
combination against the power of Russia was in process of time
formed. … In the treaty between Prussia and the Porte,
concluded at Constantinople in January, 1790, the contracting
parties bound themselves to endeavour to obtain from Austria
the restitution of those Polish provinces to which she had
given the name of Galicia. During the progress of these
auspicious changes, the Polish nation began to entertain the
hope that they might at length be suffered to reform their
institutions, to provide for their own quiet and safety, and
to adopt that policy which might one day enable them to resume
their ancient station among European nations. From 1778 to
1788, no great measures had been adopted; but no tumults
disturbed the country: reasonable opinions made some progress,
and a national spirit was slowly reviving. The nobility
patiently listened to plans for the establishment of a
productive revenue and a regular army; a disposition to
renounce their dangerous right of electing a king made
perceptible advances; and the fatal law of unanimity had been
so branded as an instrument of Russian policy, that in the
Diets of these ten years no nuncio was found bold enough to
employ his negative. … In the midst of these excellent
symptoms of public sense and temper, a Diet assembled at
Warsaw in October 1788, from whom the restoration of the
republic was hoped, and by whom it would have been
accomplished, if their prudent and honest measures had not
been defeated by one of the blackest acts of treachery
recorded in the annals of mankind. … The Diet applied itself
with the utmost diligence and caution to reform the State.
They watched the progress of popular opinion, and proposed no
reformation till the public seemed ripe for its reception." On
the 3d of May, 1791, a new Constitution, which had been
outlined and discussed in the greater part of its provisions,
during most of the previous two years, was reported to the
Diet. That body had been doubled, a few months before, by the
election of new representatives from every Dietine, who united
with the older members, in accordance with a law framed for
the occasion. By this double Diet, the new Constitution was
adopted on the day of its presentation, with only twelve
dissentient voices. "Never were debates and votes more free:
these men, the most hateful of apostates, were neither
attacked, nor threatened, nor insulted." The new Constitution
"confirmed the rights of the Established Church, together with
religious liberty, as dictated by the charity which religion
inculcates and inspires. It established an hereditary monarchy
in the Electoral House of Saxony; reserving to the nation the
right of choosing a new race of Kings, in case of the
extinction of that family. The executive power was vested in
the King, whose ministers were responsible for its exercise.
The Legislature was divided into two Houses, the Senate and
the House of Nuncios, with respect to whom the ancient
constitutional language and forms were preserved. The
necessity of unanimity [the Liberum Veto] was taken away, and,
with it, those dangerous remedies of Confederation and
Confederate Diets which it had rendered necessary.
{2556}
Each considerable town received new rights, with a restoration
of all their ancient privileges. The burgesses recovered the
right of electing their own magistrates. … All the offices of
the State, the law, the church, and the army, were thrown open
to them. The larger towns were empowered to send deputies to
the Diet, with a right to vote on all local and commercial
subjects, and to speak on all questions whatsoever. An these
deputies became noble, as did every officer of the rank of
captain, and every lawyer who filled the humblest office of
magistracy, and every burgess who acquired a property in land
paying £5 of yearly taxes. … Industry was perfectly
unfettered. … Numerous paths to nobility were thus thrown
open. Every art was employed to make the ascent easy. … Having
thus communicated political privileges to hitherto disregarded
freemen, … the constitution extended to all serfs the full
protection of law, which before was enjoyed by those of the
Royal demesnes; and it facilitated and encouraged voluntary
manumission. … The storm which demolished this noble edifice
came from abroad. … The remaining part of the year 1791 passed
in quiet, but not without apprehension. On the 9th of January,
1792, Catharine concluded a peace with Turkey at Jassy; and,
being thus delivered from all foreign enemies, began once more
to manifest intentions of interfering in the affairs of
Poland. … A small number of Polish nobles furnished her with
that very slender pretext with which she was always content.
Their chiefs were Rzewuski … and Felix Potocki. … These
unnatural apostates deserted their long-suffering country at
the moment when, for the first time, hope dawned on her. …
They were received by Catharine with the honours due from her
to the betrayers of their country. On the 12th of May, 1792,
they formed a Confederation at Targowitz. On the 18th, the
Russian minister at Warsaw declared that the Empress, 'called
on by many distinguished Poles who had confederated against
the pretended constitution of 1791, would, in virtue of her
guarantee, march an army into Poland to restore the liberties
of the Republic.'" The hope, meantime, of help from Prussia,
which had been pledged to Poland by a treaty of alliance in
March, 1790, was speedily and cruelly deceived. "Assured of
the connivance of Prussia, Catharine now poured an immense
army into Poland, along the whole line of frontier, from the
Baltic to the neighbourhood of the Euxine. The spirit of the
Polish nation was unbroken. … A series of brilliant actions
[especially at Polonna and Dubienka] occupied the summer of
1792, in which the Polish army [under Poniatowski and
Kosciusko], alternately victorious and vanquished, gave equal
proofs of unavailing gallantry. Meantime Stanislaus … on the
4th of July published a proclamation declaring that he would
not survive his country. But, on the 22d of the same month …
[he] declared his accession to the Confederation of Targowitz;
and thus threw the legal authority of the republic into the
hands of that band of conspirators. The gallant army, over
whom the Diet had intrusted their unworthy King with absolute
authority, were now compelled, by his treacherous orders, to
lay down their arms. … Such was the unhappy state of Poland
during the remainder of the year 1792," while the Empress of
Russia and the King of Prussia were secretly arranging the
terms of a new Treaty of Partition.
_Sir J. Mackintosh,
Account of the Partition of Poland
(Edinburgh Review, November, 1822;
reprinted in Miscellaneous Works)._
ALSO IN:
_H. Von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 2, chapters 1 and 6,
book 4, chapter 1, and book 6 (volumes 1-2)._
_A. Gielgud,
The Centenary of the Polish Constitution
(Westminster Review, volume 135, page 547)._
_F. C. Schlosser,
History of the 18th Century,
volume 6, division 1, chapter 2, section 4._
See, also, GERMANY: A. D. 1791-1792.
POLAND: A. D. 1793-1796.
The Second and Third Partitions.
Extinction of Polish nationality.
"The Polish patriots, remaining in ignorance of the treaty of
partition, were unconscious of half their misfortunes. The
King of Prussia in his turn crossed the western frontier
[January, 1793], announcing in his manifesto that the troubles
of Poland compromised the safety of his own States, that
Dantzig had sent corn to the French revolutionaries, and that
Great Poland was infested by Jacobin clubs, whose intrigues
were rendered doubly dangerous by the continuation of the war
with France. The King of Prussia affected to see Jacobins
whenever it was his interest to find them. The part of each of
the powers was marked out in advance. Russia was to have the
eastern provinces, with a population of 3,000,000, as far as a
line drawn from the eastern frontier of Courland, which,
passing Pinsk, ended in Gallicia, and included Borissof,
Minsk, Sloutsk, Volhynia, Podolia, and Little Russia. Prussia
had the long-coveted cities of Thorn and Dantzig, as well as
Great Poland, Posen, Gnezen, Kalisch, and Czenstochovo. If
Russia still only annexed Russian or Lithuanian territory,
Prussia for the second time cut Poland to the quick, and
another million and a half of Slavs passed under the yoke of
the Germans. It was not enough to despoil Poland, now reduced
to a territory less extensive than that occupied by Russia; it
was necessary that she should consent to the spoliation—that
she should legalise the partition. A diet was convoked at
Grodno, under the pressure of the Russian bayonets," and by
bribery as well as by coercion, after long resistance, the
desired treaty of cession was obtained. "The Polish troops who
were encamped on the provinces ceded to the Empress, received
orders to swear allegiance to her; the army that remained to
the republic consisted only of 15,000 men." Meantime,
Kosciuszko, who had won reputation in the war of the American
Revolution, and enhanced it in the brief Polish struggle of
1792, was organizing throughout Poland a great revolt,
directing the work from Dresden, to which city he had retired.
"The order to disband the army hastened the explosion.
Madalinski refused to allow the brigade that he commanded to
be disarmed, crossed the Bug, threw himself on the Prussian
Provinces, and then fell back on Cracow. At his approach, this
city, the second in Poland, the capital of the ancient kings,
rose and expelled the Russian garrison. Kosciuszko hastened to
the scene of action, and put forth the 'act of insurrection,'
in which the hateful conduct of the co-partitioners was
branded, and the population called to arms. Five thousand
scythes were made for the peasants, the voluntary offerings of
patriots were collected, and those of obstinate and lukewarm
people were extracted by force." On the 17th of April, 1794,
the inhabitants of Warsaw rose and expelled the Russian
troops, who left behind, on retreating, 4,000 killed and
wounded, 2,000 prisoners, and 12 cannon.
{2557}
"A provisional government installed itself at Warsaw, and sent
a courier to Kosciuszko." But Russian, Prussian and Austrian
armies were fast closing in upon the ill-armed and outnumbered
patriots. The Prussians took Cracow; the Russians mastered
Wilna; the Austrians entered Lublin; and Kosciuszko, forced to
give battle to the Russians, at Macciowice, October 10, was
beaten, and, half dead from many wounds, was left a prisoner
in the hands of his enemies. Then the victorious Russian army,
under Souvorof, made haste to Warsaw and carried the suburb of
Praga by storm. "The dead numbered 12,000; the prisoners only
one." Warsaw, in terror, surrendered, and Poland, as an
independent state, was extinguished. "The third treaty of
partition, forced on the Empress by the importunity of
Prussia, and in which Austria also took part, was put in
execution [1705-1706]. Russia took the rest of Lithuania as
far as the Niemen (Wilna, Grodno, Kovno, Novogrodek, Slonim),
and the rest of Volhynia to the Bug (Vladimir, Loutsk, and
Kremenetz). … Besides the Russian territory, Russia also
annexed the old Lithuania of the Jagellons, and finally
acquired Courland and Samogitia. Prussia had all Eastern
Poland, with Warsaw; Austria had Cracow, Sandomir, Lublin, and
Chelm."
_A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 10._
ALSO IN:
_R. N. Bain,
The Second Partition of Poland
(English Historical Review, April, 1801)._
_H. von Sybel,
History of the French Revolution,
book 7, chapter 5,
book 9, chapter 3 (volume 3);
and book 10, chapters 2-4 (volume 4)._
See, also, FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (MARCH-SEPTEMBER).
POLAND: A. D. 1806.
False hopes of national restoration raised by Napoleon.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER); and 1806-1807.
POLAND: A. D. 1807.
Prussian provinces formed into the grand duchy of Warsaw,
and given to the king of Saxony.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (JUNE-JULY).
POLAND: A. D. 1809.
Cession of part of Bohemia, Cracow, and western Galicia,
by Austria, to the grand duchy of Warsaw.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JULY-SEPTEMBER).
POLAND: A. D. 1812.
Fresh attempt to re-establish the kingdom,
not encouraged by Napoleon.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
POLAND: A. D. 1814-1815.
The Polish question in the Congress of Vienna.
The grand duchy of Warsaw given to Russia.
Constitution granted by the Czar.
See VIENNA, THE CONGRESS OF.
POLAND: A. D. 1830-1832.
Rising against the Russian oppressor.
Courageous struggle for independence.
Early victories and final defeat.
Barbarity of the conqueror.
"Poland, like Belgium and the Romagna, had felt the
invigorating influence of the Revolution of July [in France].
The partition of Poland had been accomplished in a dark period
of the preceding century. It was almost universally regarded
in Western Europe as a mistake and a crime. It was a mistake
to have removed the barrier which separated Russia from the
West; it was a crime to have sacrificed a free and brave
people to the ambition of a relentless autocrat. … The cause
of freedom was identified with the cause of Poland, 'and
freedom shrieked' when Poland's champion 'fell.' The
statesmen, however, who parcelled out Europe amongst the
victorious autocrats in 1815 were incapable of appreciating
the feelings which had inspired the Scotch poet. Castlereagh,
indeed, endeavoured to make terms for Poland. But he did not
lay much stress on his demands. He contented himself with
obtaining the forms of constitutional government for the
Poles. Poland, constituted a kingdom, whose crown was to pass
by hereditary succession to the Emperors of Russia, was to be
governed by a resident Viceroy, assisted by a Polish Diet.
Constantine, who had abdicated the crown of Russia in his
brother's favour, was Viceroy of Poland. … He was residing at
Warsaw when the news of the glorious days of July reached
Poland. The Poles were naturally affected by the tidings of a
revolution which had expelled autocracy from France.
Kosciusko—the hero of 1794—was their favourite patriot. The
cadets at the Military School in Warsaw, excited at the news,
drank to his memory. Constantine thought that young men who
dared to drink to Kosciusko deserved to be flogged. The
cadets, learning his decision, determined on resisting it.
Their determination precipitated a revolution which, perhaps,
under any circumstances, would have occurred. Every
circumstance which could justify revolt existed in Poland. The
Constitution provided for the regular assembly of the Diet:
the Diet had not been assembled for five years. The
Constitution declared that taxes should not be imposed on the
Poles without the consent of their representatives: for
fifteen years no budget had been submitted to the Diet. The
Constitution provided for the personal liberty of every Pole:
the Grand Duke seized and imprisoned the wretched Poles at his
pleasure. The Constitution had given Poland a representative
government; and Constantine, in defiance of it, had played the
part of an autocrat. The threat of punishment, which
Constantine pronounced against the military cadets, merely
lighted the torch which was already prepared. Eighteen young
men, armed to the teeth, entered the Grand Duke's palace and
forced their way into his apartments. Constantine had just
time to escape by a back staircase. His flight saved his life.
… The insurrection, commenced in the Archduke's palace, soon
spread. Some of the Polish regiments passed over to the
insurgents. Constantine, who displayed little courage or
ability, withdrew from the city; and, on the morning of the
30th of November [1830], the Poles were in complete possession
of Warsaw. They persuaded Chlopicki, a general who had served
with distinction under Suchet in Spain, to place himself at
their head. … Raised to the first position in the State, his
warmest counsellors urged him to attack the few thousand men
whom Constantine still commanded. Chlopicki preferred
negotiating with the Russians. The negotiation, of course,
failed. … Chlopicki—his own well-intentioned effort having
failed—resigned his office; and his fellow countrymen invested
Radziwil with the command of their army, and placed Adam
Czartoryski at the head of the Government. In the meanwhile
Nicholas was steadily preparing for the contest which was
before him. Diebitsch, who had brought the campaign of 1820 to
a victorious conclusion, was entrusted with the command of the
Russian army. … Three great military roads converge from the
east upon Warsaw.
{2558}
The most northerly of these enters Poland at Kovno, crosses
the Narew, a tributary of the Bug, at Ostrolenka, and runs
down the right bank of the first of these rivers; the central
road crosses the Bug at Brzesc and proceeds almost due west
upon Warsaw; the most southerly of the three enters Poland
from the Austrian frontier, crosses the Vistula at Gora, and
proceeds along its west bank to the capital. Diebitsch decided
on advancing by all three routes on Warsaw. … Diebitsch, on
the 20th of February, 1831, attacked the Poles; on the 25th he
renewed the attack. The battle on the 20th raged round the
village of Grochow; it raged on the 25th round the village of
Praga. Fought with extreme obstinacy, neither side was able to
claim any decided advantage. The Russians could boast that the
Poles had withdrawn across the Vistula. The Poles could
declare that their retreat had been conducted at leisure, and
that the Russians were unable or unwilling to renew the
attack. Diebitsch himself, seriously alarmed at the situation
into which he had fallen, remained for a month in inaction at
Grochow. Before the month was over Radziwil, who had proved
unequal to the duties of his post, was superseded in the
command of the Polish army by Skrzynecki. On the 30th of
March, Skrzynecki crossed the Vistula at Praga, and attacked
the division of the Russian army which occupied the forest of
Waver, near Grochow. The attack was made in the middle of the
night. The Russians were totally defeated; they experienced a
loss of 5,000 in killed and wounded, and 6,000 prisoners.
Crippled by this disaster, Diebitsch fell back before the
Polish army. Encouraged by his success, Skrzynecki pressed
forward in pursuit. The great central road by which Warsaw is
approached crosses the Kostczyn, a tributary of the Bug, near
the little village of Iganie, about half-way between Russia
and Warsaw. Eleven days after the victory of the 30th of March
the Russians were again attacked by the Poles at Iganie. The
Poles won a second victory. The Russians, disheartened at a
succession of reverses, scattered before the attack; and the
cause of Poland seemed to have been already won by the
gallantry of her children and the skill of their generals.
Diebitsch, however, defeated at Grochow and Iganie, was not
destroyed. … Foregoing his original intention of advancing by
three roads on Warsaw, he determined to concentrate his right
on the northern road at Ostrolenka, his left, on the direct
road at Siedlice. It was open to Skrzynecki to renew the
attack, where Diebitsch expected it, and throw himself on the
defeated remnants of the Russian army at Siedlice. Instead of
doing so he took advantage of his central situation to cross
the Bug and throw himself upon the Russian right at
Ostrolenka. … Skrzynecki had reason to hope that he might
obtain a complete success before Diebitsch could by any
possibility march to the rescue. He failed. Diebitsch
succeeded in concentrating his entire force before the
destruction of his right wing had been consummated. On the
26th of May, Skrzynecki found himself opposed to the whole
Russian army. Throughout the whole of that day the Polish
levies gallantly struggled for the victory. When evening came
they remained masters of the field which had been the scene of
the contest. A negative victory of this character, however,
was not the object of the great movement upon the Russian
right. The Polish general, his army weakened by heavy losses,
resolved on retiring upon Warsaw. Offensive operations were
over: the defensive campaign had begun. Victory with the Poles
had, in fact, proved as fatal as defeat. The Russians, relying
upon their almost illimitable resources, could afford to lose
two men for every one whom Poland could spare. … It happened,
too, that a more fatal enemy than even war fell upon Poland in
the hour of her necessity. The cholera, which had been rapidly
advancing through Russia during 1830, broke out in the Russian
army in the spring of 1831. The prisoners taken at Iganie
communicated the seeds of infection to the Polish troops. Both
armies suffered severely from the disease; but the effects of
it were much more serious to the cause of Poland than to the
cause of Russia. … A fortnight after the battle of Ostrolenka,
Diebitsch, who had advanced his head-quarters to Pultusk,
succumbed to the malady. In the same week Constantine, the
Viceroy of Poland, and his Polish wife, also died. … Diebitsch
was at once succeeded in the command by Paskievitsch, an
officer who had gained distinction in Asia Minor. … On the 7th
of July, Paskievitsch crossed the Vistula at Plock, and
threatened Warsaw from the rear. … Slowly and steadily he
advanced against the capital. On the 6th of September he
attacked the devoted city. Inch by inch the Russians made
their way over the earthworks which had been constructed in
its defence. On the evening of the 7th the town was at their
mercy; on the 8th it capitulated. … The news of its fall
reached Paris on the 15th of September. The news of Waterloo
had not created so much consternation in the French capital.
Business was suspended; the theatres were closed. The cause of
Poland was in every mind, the name of Poland on every tongue.
… On the 26th of February, 1832, Nicholas, promulgated a new
organic statute for the government of Poland, which he had the
insolence to claim for Russia by the right of conquest of
1815. A draft of the statute reached Western Europe in the
spring of 1832. About the same time stories were received of
the treatment which the Russians were systematically applying
to the ill-fated country. Her schools were closed; her
national libraries and public collections removed; the
children of the Poles were carried into Russia; their fathers
Were swept into the Russian army; whole families accused of
participation in the rebellion were marched into the interior
of the empire; columns of Poles, it was stated, could be seen
on the Russian roads linked man to man by bars of iron; and
little children, unable to bear the fatigues of a long
journey, were included among them; the dead bodies of those
who had perished on the way could be seen on the sides of the
Russian roads. The wail of their wretched mothers—"Oh, that
the Czar could be drowned in our tears!'—resounded throughout
Europe."
_S. Walpole,
History of England,
chapter 16 (volume 3)._
ALSO IN:
_J. Hordynski,
History of the late Polish Revolution._
_A. Rambaud,
History of Russia,
volume 2, chapter 14._
_Sir A. Alison,
History of Europe, 1815-52,
chapter 26._
POLAND: A. D. 1846.
Insurrection in Galicia suppressed.
Extinction of the republic of Cracow.
Its annexation to Austria.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1815-1846.
{2559}
POLAND: A. D. 1860-1864.
The last insurrection.
"In 1860 broke out the last great Polish insurrection, in all
respects a very ill–advised attempt. On the 29th of November
of that year, on the occasion of the 30th anniversary of the
revolution of 1830, national manifestations, taking a
religious form, took place in the Warsaw churches. … On the
25th of February, 1861, on the anniversary of the battle of
Grochow, the Agricultural Society of that city, presided over
by Count Zamojski, held a meeting for the purpose of
presenting a petition to the Emperor to grant a constitution.
Although the Tsar did not concede this demand, he decreed by
an ukase of the 26th of March a council of state for the
kingdom, elective councils in each government, and municipal
councils in Warsaw and the chief cities. Moreover, the Polish
language was to be adopted in all the schools of the kingdom.
… On the 8th of April the people appeared in crowds in front
of the castle of the Viceroy, and when they refused to
disperse, were fired upon by the soldiers. About 200 persons
were killed in this unfortunate affair, and many more wounded.
The viceroyalty of Count Lambert was not successful in
conciliating the people; he was succeeded by Count Lüders, who
was reactionary in his policy. An attempt was made in June,
1862, on the life of the Count in the Saxon Garden (Saksonski
Sad), and he was soon afterwards recalled; his place being
taken by the Grand Duke Constantine, who was chiefly guided by
the Marquis Wielopolski, an unpopular but able man. Two
attempts were made upon the life of the Grand Duke, the latter
of which was nearly successful; the life of Wielopolski was
also several times in danger. … On the night of June 15, 1863,
a secret conscription was held, and the persons considered to
be most hostile to the Government were taken in their beds and
forcibly enlisted. Out of a population of 180,000 the number
thus seized at Warsaw was 2,000; soon after this the
insurrection broke out. Its proceedings were directed by a
secret committee, styled Rzad (Government), and were as
mysterious as the movements of the celebrated Fehmgerichte.
The Poles fought under enormous difficulties. Most of the
bands consisted of undisciplined men, unfamiliar with military
tactics, and they had to contend with well–organised troops.
Few of them had muskets; the generality were armed only with
pikes, scythes, and sticks. … The bands of the insurgents were
chiefly composed of priests, the smaller landowners, lower
officials, and peasants who had no land, but those peasants
who possessed any land refused to join. Many showed but a
languid patriotism on account of the oppressive laws relating
to the poorer classes, formerly in vigour in Poland, of which
the tradition was still strong. The war was only guerilla
fighting, in which the dense forests surrounding the towns
were of great assistance to the insurgents. The secret
emissaries of the revolutionary Government were called
stiletcziki, from the daggers which they carried. They
succeeded in killing many persons who had made themselves
obnoxious to the national party. … No quarter was given to the
chiefs of the insurgents; when captured they were shot or
hanged. … When the Grand Duke Constantine resigned the
viceroyalty at Warsaw he was succeeded by Count Berg. … By
May, 1864, the insurrection was suppressed, but it had cost
Poland dear. All its old privileges were now taken away;
henceforth all teaching, both in the universities and schools,
must be in the Russian language. Russia was triumphant, and
paid no attention to the demands of the three Great Powers,
England, France, and Austria. Prussia had long been silently
and successfully carrying on her plan for the Germanisation of
Posen, and on the 8th of February, 1863, she had concluded a
convention with Russia with a view of putting a stop to the
insurrection. Her method throughout has been more drastic; she
has slowly eliminated or weakened the Polish element,
carefully avoiding any of those reprisals which would cause a
European scandal."
_W. R. Morfill,
The Story of Poland,
chapter 12._
POLAND: A. D. 1868.
Complete incorporation with Russia.
By an imperial ukase, February 23, 1868, the government of
Poland was absolutely incorporated with that of Russia.
----------POLAND: End--------
POLAR STAR, The Order of the.
A Swedish order of knighthood, the date of the founding of
which is uncertain.
POLEMARCH.
See GREECE: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.
POLETÆ.
POLETERIUM.
"Every thing which the state (Athens) sold, or leased;
revenues, real property, mines, confiscated estates, in which
is to be included also the property of public debtors, who
were in arrear after the last term of respite, and the bodies
of the aliens under the protection of the state, who had not
paid the sum required for protection, and of foreigners who
had been guilty of assuming the rights of citizenship, or of
the crime called apostasion; all these, I say, together with
the making of contracts for the public works, at least in
certain cases and periods, were under the charge of the ten
poletæ, although not always without the coöperation of other
boards of officers. Each of the tribes appointed one of the
members of this branch of the government, and their sessions
were held in the edifice called the Poleterium."
_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens (Lamb's translation),
book 2, chapter 3._
POLITIQUES, The Party of the.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1573-1576.
POLK, James K.:
Presidential election and administration.
See UNITED STATES OF AM.:A. D. 1844, to 1848.
POLKOS, The.
See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.
POLLENTIA, Battle of.
See GOTHS: A. D. 400-403.
POLLICES.
See FOOT, THE ROMAN.
POLO, Marco, The travels of.
"This celebrated personage was not, in the strict sense of the
word, a traveller. He was one of those professional
politicians of the Middle Ages who are familiar to the student
of Italian history. The son of a travelling Venetian merchant,
who had already passed many years in Tartary, and been
regarded with welcome and consideration by the Grand Khan
himself, he was taken at an early age to the Grand Khan's
court, and apprenticed, as it were, to the Grand Khan's
service. The young adventurer possessed in a high degree that
subtlety and versatility which opinion attributes to his
nation. Profiting by his opportunities, he soon succeeded in
transmuting himself into a Tartar.
{2560}
He adopted the Tartar dress, studied the Tartar manners, and
mastered the four languages spoken in the Grand Khan's
dominions. Kublai appears first to have employed him as a
secretary, and then to have sent him on confidential missions:
and during a service of seventeen years Marco was engaged in
this way, in journeys by land and sea, in every part of the
Grand Khan's empire and dependencies. More than this, he
travelled on his own account, everywhere, it would appear,
recording his notes and observations, partly for his own use,
and partly for the information or entertainment of his master.
These notes and observations were given to the world of Europe
under the following circumstances. After a residence of
seventeen years, Marco obtained permission to revisit Venice,
accompanied by his father and uncle. Not long after his
return, he was taken in a sea-fight with the Genoese, and
committed to prison. To relieve the ennui of his confinement,
he procured his rough notes from Venice, and dictated to a
fellow–prisoner the narrative which passes under his name.
This narrative soon became known to the world: and from its
publication may be dated that intense and active interest in
the East which has gone on steadily increasing ever since. The
rank and dignified character of this famous adventurer, the
romance of his career, the wealth which he amassed, the extent
of his observations, the long series of years they had
occupied, the strange and striking facts which he reported,
and the completeness and perspicuity of his narrative,
combined to produce a marked effect on the Italian world.
Marco Polo was the true predecessor of Columbus. From an early
time we find direct evidence of his influence on the process
of exploration. … Wherever the Italian captains went, the fame
of the great Venetian's explorations was noised abroad: and,
as we shall presently see, the Italian captains were the chief
directors of navigation and discovery in every seaport of
Western Europe. The work dictated by Marco Polo to his
fellow-captive, though based upon his travels both in form and
matter, is no mere journal or narrative of adventure. A brief
account of his career in the East is indeed prefixed, and the
route over which he carries his reader is substantially that
chronologically followed by himself; for he takes his reader
successively overland to China, by way of the Black Sea,
Armenia, and Tartary, backwards and forwards by land and sea,
throughout the vast dominions of the Grand Khan, and finally
homeward by the Indian Ocean, touching by the way at most of
those famous countries which bordered thereon. Yet the book is
no book of travels. It is rather a Handbook to the East for
the use of other European travellers, and was clearly compiled
as such and nothing more. Perhaps no compiler has ever laid
down a clearer or more practical plan, adopted a more
judicious selection of facts, or relieved it by a more
attractive embroidery of historical anecdote. … It is not here
to the purpose to dwell on his notices of Armenia, Turcomania,
and Persia: his descriptions of the cities of Bagdad, Ormus,
Tabriz, and many others, or to follow him to Kashmir,
Kashghar, and Samarkhand, and across the steppes of Tartary.
The main interest of Marco Polo lies in his description of the
Grand Khan's Empire, and of those wide-spread shores, all
washed by the Indian Ocean, which from Zanzibar to Japan went
by the general name of India. … The Pope alone, among European
potentates of the 15th century, could be ranked as approaching
in state and dignity to the Tartar sovereign of China. For any
fair parallel, recourse must be had to the Great Basileus of
Persia: and in the eyes of his Venetian secretary the Grand
Khan appeared much as Darius or Cyrus may have appeared to the
Greek adventurers who crowded his court, and competed for the
favour of a mighty barbarian whom they at once flattered and
despised."
_E. J. Payne,
History of the New World,
book 1._
ALSO IN:
_The Book of Ser Marco Polo;
edited by Colonel H. Yule._
_T. W. Knox,
Travels of Marco Polo for Boys and Girls._
_G. M. Towle,
Marco Polo._
See, also, CHINA: A. D. 1259-1294.
POLONNA, Battle of (1792).
See POLAND: A. D. 1791-1792.
POLYNESIANS, The.
See MALAYAN RACE.
POLYPOTAMIA, The proposed State of.
See NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1784.
POMERANIANS, The.
"Adam of Bremen first mentions these Pomeranians [east of the
Oder], and he mentions them as Slavonians, the Oder being
their boundary to the West. On the east they were conterminous
with the Prussians. Their name is Slavonic, 'po'='on' and
'more'='sea,'='coastmen.' All their antiquities and traditions
are equally so; in other words there is neither evidence, nor
shadow of evidence, of their ever having dispossessed an older
Germanic population. Nor are they wholly extinct at the
present moment. On the promontories which project into the
Gulf of Dantzig we find the Slavonic Kassub, Cassubitæ, or
Kaszeb. Their language approaches the Polish."
_R. G. Latham,
The Germania of Tacitus, Prolegomena,
section 7._
POMERIUM, The Roman.
"The pomerium was a hallowed space, along the whole circuit of
the city, behind the wall, where the city auspices were taken,
over which the augurs had full right, and which could never be
moved without their first consulting the will of the gods. The
pomerium which encircled the Palatine appears to have been the
space between the wall and the foot of the hill."
_H. M. Westropp,
Early and Imperial Rome,
page 40._
POMPADOUR, Madame de, Ascendancy of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1723-1774.
POMPÆ.
The solemn processions of the ancient Athenians, on which they
expended great sums of money, were so called.
_A. Boeckh,
Public Economy of Athens,
book 2, chapter 12._
POMPEII.
"Pompeii was a maritime city at the mouth of the river Sarnus,
the most sheltered recess of the Neapolitan Crater. Its origin
was lost in antiquity, and the tradition that it was founded
by Hercules, together with the other spot [Herculaneum] which
bore the name of the demigod, was derived perhaps from the
warm springs with which the region abounded. The Greek
plantations on the Campanian coast had been overrun by the
Oscans and Samnites; nevertheless the graceful features of
Grecian civilization were still everywhere conspicuous, and
though Pompeii received a Latin name, and though Sulla,
Augustus, and Nero had successively endowed it with Roman
colonists, it retained the manners and to a great extent the
language of the settlers from beyond the sea."
_C. Merivale,
History of the Romans,
chapter 60._
{2561}
Pompeii, and the neighboring city of Herculaneum, were
overwhelmed by a volcanic eruption from Mount Vesuvius, on the
23rd of August, A. D. 79. They were buried, but did not
perish; they were death-stricken, but not destroyed; and by
excavations, which began at Pompeii A. D. 1748, they have been
extensively uncovered, and made to exhibit to modern times the
very privacies and secrets of life in a Roman city of the age
of Titus.
_Pliny the Younger, Letters,
book 6, epistles 16 and 20._
ALSO IN:
_T. H. Dyer,
Pompeii._
POMPEII AND HERCULANEUM, Exhumed Libraries of.
See LIBRARIES, ANCIENT: HERCULANEUM.
POMPEIUS, the Great, and the first Triumvirate.
See ROME: B. C. 78-68, to B. C. 48;
and ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
PONCAS,
PONKAS,
PUNCAS, The.
See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY,
and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
----------PONDICHERRY: Start--------
PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1674-1697.
Founded by the French.
Taken by the Dutch.
Restored to France.
See INDIA: A. D. 1665-1743.
PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1746.
Siege by the English.
See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.
PONDICHERRY: A. D. 1761.
Capture by the English.
See INDIA: A. D. 1758-1761.
----------PONDICHERRY: End--------
PONIATOWSKY, Stanislaus Augustus,
King of Poland, A. D. 1764-1795.
PONKAS.
See PONCAS.
PONS ÆLII.
A Roman bridge and military station on the Tyne, where
Newcastle is now situated.
_H. M. Scarth,
Roman Britain,
chapter 8._
PONS SUBLICIUS, The.
See SUBLICIAN BRIDGE.
PONT ACHIN, Battle of.
See FRANCE: A. D. 1794 (MARCH-JULY).
PONTCHARRA, Battle of (1591).
See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.
PONTE NUOVO, Battle of (1769).
See CORSICA: A. D. 1729-1769.
PONTIAC'S WAR (A. D. 1763-1764).
"With the conquest of Canada and the expulsion of France as a
military power from the continent, the English colonists were
abounding in loyalty to the mother country, were exultant in
the expectation of peace, and in the assurance of immunity
from Indian wars in the future; for it did not seem possible
that, with the loose system of organization and government
common to the Indians, they could plan and execute a general
campaign without the co–operation of the French as leaders.
This feeling of security among the English settlements was of
short duration. A general discontent pervaded all the Indian
tribes from the frontier settlements to the Mississippi, and
from the great lakes to the Gulf of Mexico. The extent of this
disquietude was not suspected, and hence no attempt was made
to gain the goodwill of the Indians. There were many real
causes for this discontent. The French had been politic and
sagacious in their intercourse with the Indian. They gained
his friendship by treating him with respect and justice. They
came to him with presents, and, as a rule, dealt with him
fairly in trade. They came with missionaries, unarmed, heroic,
self-denying men. … Many Frenchmen married Indian wives, dwelt
with the native tribes, and adopted their customs. To the
average Englishman, on the other hand, Indians were disgusting
objects; he would show them no respect, nor treat them with
justice except under compulsion. … The French had shown little
disposition to make permanent settlements; but the English,
when they appeared, came to stay, and they occupied large
tracts of the best land for agricultural purposes. The French
hunters and traders, who were widely dispersed among the
native tribes, kept the Indians in a state of disquietude by
misrepresenting the English, exaggerating their faults, and
making the prediction that the French would soon recapture
Canada and expel the English from the Western territories.
Pontiac, the chief of the Ottawas [see CANADA: A. D. 1760],
was the Indian who had the motive, the ambition, and capacity
for organization which enabled him to concentrate and use all
these elements of discontent for his own malignant and selfish
purposes. After the defeat of the French, be professed for a
time to be friendly with the English, expecting that, under
the acknowledged supremacy of Great Britain, he would be
recognized as a mighty Indian prince, and be assigned to rule
over his own, and perhaps a confederacy of other tribes.
Finding that the English government had no use for him, he was
indignant, and he devoted all the energies of his vigorous
mind to a secret conspiracy of uniting the tribes west of the
Alleghanies to engage in a general war against the English
settlements ['The tribes thus banded together against the
English comprised, with a few unimportant exceptions, the
whole Algonquin stock, to whom were united the Wyandots, the
Senecas, and several tribes of the lower Mississippi. The
Senecas were the only members of the Iroquois confederacy who
joined in the league, the rest being kept quiet by the
influence of Sir William Johnson.'
_F. Parkman,
Conspiracy of Pontiac,
volume 1, page 187._
… His scheme was to make a simultaneous attack on all the
Western posts in the month of May, 1763; and each attack was
assigned to the neighboring tribes. His summer home was on a
small island at the entrance of Lake St. Clair; and being near
Detroit, he was to conduct in person the capture of that fort.
On the 6th of May, 1763, Major Gladwin, in command at Detroit,
had warning from an Indian girl that the next day an attempt
would be made to capture the fort by treachery. When Pontiac,
on the appointed morning, accompanied by 60 of his chiefs,
with short guns concealed under their blankets, appeared at
the fort, and, as usual, asked for admission, he was startled
at seeing the whole garrison under arms, and that his scheme
of treachery had miscarried. For two months the savages
assailed the fort, and the sleepless garrison gallantly
defended it, when they were relieved by the arrival of a
schooner from Fort Niagara, with 60 men, provisions, and
ammunition. Fort Pitt, on the present site of Pittsburg,
Pennsylvania, was in command of Captain Ecuyer, another
trained soldier, who had been warned of the Indian conspiracy
by Major Gladwin in a letter written May 5th. Captain Ecuyer,
having a garrison of 330 soldiers and backwoodsmen,
immediately made every preparation for defence. On May 27th, a
party of Indians appeared at the fort under the pretence of
wishing to trade, and were treated as spies.
{2562}
Active operations against Fort Pitt were postponed until the
smaller forts had been taken. Fort Sandusky was captured May
16th; Fort St. Joseph (on the St. Joseph River, Michigan), May
25th; Fort Ouatanon (now Lafayette, Indiana), May 31st; Fort
Michillimaekinac (now Mackinaw, Michigan), June 2d; Fort
Presqu' Isle (now Erie, Pennsylvania), June 17th; Fort Le Bœuf
(Erie County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; Fort Venango (Venango
County, Pennsylvania), June 18th; and the posts at Carlisle
and Bedford, Pennsylvania, on the same day. No garrison except
that at Presqu' Is]e had warning of danger. The same method of
capture was adopted in each instance. A small party of Indians
came to the fort with the pretence of friendship, and were
admitted. Others soon joined them, when the visitors rose upon
the small garrisons, butchered them, or took them captive. At
Presqu' Isle the Indians laid siege to the fort for two days,
when they set it on fire. At Venango no one of the garrison
survived to give an account of the capture. On June 22d, a
large body of Indians surrounded Fort Pitt and opened fire on
all sides, but were easily repulsed. … The Indians departed
next day and did not return until July 26th," when they laid
siege to the fort for five days and nights, with more loss to
themselves than to the garrison. They "then disappeared, in
order to intercept the expedition of Colonel Bouquet, which
was approaching from the east with a convoy of provisions for
the relief of Fort Pitt. It was fortunate for the country that
there was an officer stationed at Philadelphia who fully
understood the meaning of the alarming reports which were
coming in from the Western posts. Colonel Henry Bouquet was a
gallant Swiss officer who had been trained in war from his
youth, and whose personal accomplishments gave an additional
charm to his bravery and heroic energy. He had served seven
years in fighting American Indians, and was more cunning than
they in the practice of their own artifices. General Amherst,
the commander-in–chief, was slow in appreciating the
importance and extent of the Western conspiracy; yet he did
good service in directing Colonel Bouquet to organize an
expedition for the relief of Fort Pitt. The promptness and
energy with which this duty was performed, under the most
embarrassing conditions, make the expedition one of the most
brilliant episodes in American warfare. The only troops
available for the service were about 500 regulars recently
arrived from the siege of Havana, broken in health." At Bushy
Run, 25 miles east of Fort Pitt, Bouquet fought a desperate
battle with the savages, and defeated them by the stratagem of
a pretended retreat, which drew them into an ambuscade. Fort
Pitt was then reached in safety. "On the 29th of July Detroit
was reinforced by 280 men under Captain Dalzell, who in June
had left Fort Niagara in 22 barges, with several cannon and a
supply of provisions and ammunition. The day after his
arrival, Captain Dalzell proposed, with 250 men, to make a
night attack on Pontiac's camp and capture him. Major Gladwin
discouraged the attempt, but finally, against his judgment,
consented. Some Canadians obtained the secret and carried it
to Pontiac, who waylaid the party in an ambuscade [at a place
called Bloody Bridge ever since]. Twenty of the English were
killed and 39 wounded. Among the killed was Captain Dalzell
himself. Pontiac could make no use of this success, as the
fort was strongly garrisoned and well supplied. … Elsewhere
there was nothing to encourage him." His confederation begun
to break, and in November he was forced to raise the siege of
Detroit. "There was quietness on the frontiers during the
winter of 1763-64. In the spring of 1764 scattered war parties
were again ravaging the borders. Colonel Bouquet was
recruiting in Pennsylvania, and preparing an outfit for his
march into the valley of the Ohio. In June, Colonel
Bradstreet, with a force of 1,200 men, was sent up the great
lakes," where he made an absurd and unauthorized treaty with
some of the Ohio Indians. He arrived at Detroit on the 26th of
August. "Pontiac had departed, and sent messages of defiance
from the banks of the Maumee." Colonel Bouquet had experienced
great difficulty in raising troops and supplies and it was not
until September, 1764, that he again reached Fort Pitt. But
before two months passed he had brought the Delawares and
Shawanees to submission and had delivered some 200 white
captives from their hands. Meantime, Sir William Johnson, in
conjunction with Bradstreet, had held conferences with a great
council of 2,000 warriors at Fort Niagara, representing
Iroquois, Ottawas, Ojibways, Wyandots and others, and had
concluded several treaties of peace. By one of these, with the
Senecas, a strip of land four miles wide on each side of
Niagara River, from Erie to Ontario, was ceded to the British
government. "The Pontiac War, so far as battles and campaigns
were concerned, was ended; but Pontiac was still at large and
as untamed as ever. His last hope was the Illinois country,
where the foot of an English soldier had never trod;" and
there he schemed and plotted without avail until 1765. In 1769
he was assassinated, near St. Louis.